Re: Test for > 'last

["Ant" <ant@work.invalid>]

"Vinzent Hoefler" <JeLlyFish.software@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:b4t635$22plon$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de...
>"Ant" <ant@work.invalid> wrote:

[...]
>>I would rather do this:
>>
>>if enum_input not in enum_type'first .. enum_type'last then
>>  -- handle error
>>end if;
>
>And would be wrong, too, if enum_input also has the type enum_type.
>
>If you look closer to this, this statement does not make sense and the
>compiler is indeed not required to check this, because the contract
>tells him, this condition will *always* be false (even if in fact it
>might not be). What else should a enum_input contain than some value
>of enum_type?
>
>Either use 'Valid or use a type that is allowed to contain values
>outside the range of the type to be compared with.

Yes. I can see it's all nonesense now, in the context of enumerated
types. I was looking at the test, and stating my preference for the use
of 'x in y .. z', rather than 'x < y or x > z ' type of construct.