Re: Ranges and (non)static constraints

["Stuart" <stuart@0.0>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:1msd2xaahtsgv.f8io255x4f0n$.dlg@40tude.net...

> These are sufficiently different. Consider this example:
>
>   N : constant := 2**64; -- Legal in GNAT
>   type T is range 1..N;  -- Illegal in GNAT
>
> (This is not a bug)
>
> I would at least require the second be legal when the first is.

Why?  The first is a named value declaration (rather than a constant object 
declaration).  In the type declaration I think the semantics of Ada require 
that the base type be a signed type, which thus introduces issues of 
symmetry around zero.

Unfortunately I am in a bit of a rush at the moment so I don't have a chance 
to test an idea like:
   type T is mod N range 1..N-1;

Regards
-- 
Stuart