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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,da5197b9dca0ed40
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Phil Thornley <phil.jpthornley@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Processing array subsections, a newbie question.
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <46bd5d0a-e78c-405b-a0a9-f0c34ed3844f@b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>
References: <4c13db30$0$2391$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <8739wsottd.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<9e1f3f35-6f49-468f-be89-46d4f51f8193@f17g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
	<4c14e3fd$0$2382$4d3efbfe@news.sover.net>
 <e6411932-94a1-452d-9211-d80dfe3a3d8e@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>
	<op.vd84rhp4xmjfy8@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.177.171.182
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1276455852 32162 127.0.0.1 (13 Jun 2010 19:04:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2010 19:04:12 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.177.171.182;
	posting-account=Fz1-yAoAAACc1SDCr-Py2qBj8xQ-qC2q
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
	Trident/4.0; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR
	3.0.30729; Media Center PC 6.0),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12655
Date: 2010-06-13T12:04:12-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13 June, 19:39, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> Le Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:57:14 +0200, Phil Thornley =A0
> <phil.jpthorn...@gmail.com> a =E9crit:> In the situation you
> > describe I would define a type (to replace your use of Natural) that
> > has one extra value at the end
>
> I see what you mean, but ...
> Personal feeling: this looks like a trick, would not recommend it. To be =
=A0
> short: types should not defined this way. Implementation should be =A0
> adjusted to specification (a type is a part of a specification) and not =
=A0
> the opposite, that is, to adapt specifications (types here) to an =A0
> implementation.
>

That's quite a severe point of view - I would classify the extra value
as a 'boundary value' as described in AQ&S 5.3.1 on subtypes.

Cheers,

Phil