From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:258b:: with SMTP id
 g133-v6mr3831796itg.4.1522546444702;
        Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:e5b:: with SMTP id n27-v6mr232763otd.2.1522546444608;
 Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!paganini.bofh.team!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!u184-v6no2560452ita.0!news-out.google.com!d3-v6ni1263itf.0!nntp.google.com!k65-v6no776977ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2018 18:34:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6b8fb3ef-700f-4930-9a1e-5126d9482a26@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=173.71.218.250;
 posting-account=QF6XPQoAAABce2NyPxxDAaKdAkN6RgAf
NNTP-Posting-Host: 173.71.218.250
References: <e1e73838-2e45-4f53-9cbf-e28e85100fd1@googlegroups.com>
 <fc00973e-ffa0-42b7-9872-5971e5e915c2@googlegroups.com>
 <6b8fb3ef-700f-4930-9a1e-5126d9482a26@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <3d0554a2-95e8-4f8f-9fdf-1743d3f1dc18@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: limited agregate and limited components default initialization
From: Jere <jhb.chat@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 01:34:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51267
Date: 2018-03-31T18:34:04-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, March 31, 2018 at 9:16:49 PM UTC-4, Jean-Claude Rostaing wrote:
> Interesting.
> Let's say I get that - not quite done in reality, ITEM_TYPE's formal type
> is "(<>) is limited private", so why giving a default expression -not discriminant- isn't enough to constrain the component's value ?

As I said in my second response, the limited might make it ok (I don't know
for sure now that I think about it), but when I looked at the RM, the section
on discriminants didn't mention limited types.

I thought you meant discriminant.  If you meant expression, I'm not sure.
My apologies!

Can you give a slightly more complete example?  The one earlier was fairly
incomplete.  I couldn't tell what Item_Record type looked like for example.