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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.7.0.10 $; site ada-uts
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!ima!inmet!ada-uts!stt
From: stt@ada-uts
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: static derived types ???
Message-ID: <4700021@ada-uts>
Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 14:45:00 EST
Article-I.D.: ada-uts.4700021
Posted: Thu Mar 20 14:45:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Mar-86 00:22:39 EST
Nf-ID: #R:<8603180411.AA23285@ucbvax.berke:-40:ada-uts:4700021:200:607
Nf-From: ada-uts!stt    Mar 20 14:45:00 1986
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


There was a bit of a controversy over this one because
the description of derived types talks about using
conversion on the bounds of the parent subtype to produce
the derived subtype, and conversion is not static (for no
great reason, as far as I can determine -- something having
to do with rounding being non-deterministic).

The Language Review Board decided that the intent was
that subtypes derived from subtypes with static bounds
remain static (if I remember correctly).

 Note that only SUBtypes are classified
static vs. non-static -- the BASE (sub)type of a scalar
type always has static bounds.