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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,74a56083ffbe573d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain (Bob Gilbert)
Subject: Re: Zoo question
Date: 1996/08/16
Message-ID: <4v1m7n$8du@zeus.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 174536169
references: <321207F7.4D24@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: The unconfigured xvnews people
reply-to: rgilbert@unconfigured.xvnews.domain
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <321207F7.4D24@lmtas.lmco.com>, Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> writes:
> Bob Gilbert wrote:
> > 
> > Right, so depending on the particular (Ada 83) compiler, the code may or
> > may not produce the desired result, depending on whether the constraint
> > check is performed within the begin block or not.
> 
> Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to not generate a range
> check when assigning a value of 6 to an object declared with range 1 .. 5?

Geez... did I actually type that?  I guess the only acceptable way to not
generate the range check would be to compile with the checking turned off.

-Bob