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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!unido!fbihh!schroed
From: schroed@fbihh.UUCP (Carsten Schroeder)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic problem in VAX-Ada 2.1
Message-ID: <417@fbihh.UUCP>
Date: 11 Jun 90 07:02:18 GMT
References: <410@fbihh.UUCP> <20120@grebyn.com>
Organization: University of Hamburg, FB Informatik, W-Germany
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

karl@grebyn.com (Karl A. Nyberg) writes:

>This set of files compiles fine under VADS 6.0.1(a) for VAX/Ultrix.  I'm not
>a language lawyer either (where's Bob Eachus when you need him - probably on
>his way to Dublin... :-)) Maybe what is missing is AI-00037/12-BI-WJ (a
>binding AI, approved all the way through ISO to the Director of the AJPO),
>which reads in part:

>	For occurrences of the name of a formal private type at places where
>	this name is used as an unconstrained subtype indication, the actual
>	subtype can be an unconstrained type with discriminants that have
>	defaults even if an occurrence of the formal type is at a place
>	where either a constraint or default discriminants would be required
>	for a type with discriminants.  The same applies to occurrences of
>	the name of a subtype of the formal type, and to occurrences of the
>	name of any type or subtype derived, directly or indirectly, from
>	the formal type.

>-- Karl --

The VAX-Ada documentation states that AI-00037 was included in Version 2.1,
but if I understand this interpretation right it does not apply to 
unconstraint arrays but only to unconstraint records. What is actually needed
is a similar Ada-Interpretion applying to unconstraint arrays.

I think this interpretation is a funny character, because it states almost
the opposite of what the original LRM-section 12.3.2(4) states.
Any disagreement?

Thanks a lot,