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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,85ee038f08622eb8,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU (Spasmo)
Subject: Array Literals?
Date: 1996/08/12
Message-ID: <4uo9b6$qj1@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 173768762
organization: University of Houston
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Hey all.  I've got a question about array literals.
I looked through the RM (checked out the index and
hopped to the keywords that looked promising) but
I couldn't find the answer to this question.

Ok for my question.  Is it valid on all Ada
implementations to provide array literals to 
functions and the like?  I know that Gnat let
me do it but I'd just like to make sure this
is guaranteed to work regardless of implementation.

For example:

type Int_Array is array(Integer range <>) of Integer;

procedure Print_Int_Array ( I_List : Int_Array ) is
begin
	for I in I_List'Range loop
		Put_Line( Integer'Image ( I_List(I) ) );
	end loop;
end Print_Int_Array;


Now when we call it, is it standardly acceptable to
call it as such:

	Print_Int_Array ( (1, 2, 3, 4) );

Where (1, 2, 3, 4) is an array literal?  I know it
works in GNAT3.05 but I want to make sure this isn't
a fluke and that I can depend on this behavior
regardless of which implementation I use.

So this would mean that array literals are in fact
flexible enough to be used anywhere an array can
be used eh?  

Thanks in advance.

--
Spasmo
"Everyone has secrets, but sometimes you get caught,
 So if it's just between us, my silence can be bought"
	"Blackmail" by Sloppy Seconds