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: 103376,483a6309b2450e41 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: gavin@praxis.co.uk (Gavin Finnie) Subject: Re: Ada 95 case statement incompatibility? Date: 1996/08/28 Message-ID: <501hdb$5cv@erlang.praxis.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 176984448 references: <4vv4bs$hb8@erlang.praxis.co.uk> organization: Praxis plc, Bath, U.K. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In response to my original posting, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Exactly, it is quite hard to believe that you found this in a real program, >surely you just figured it out from reading. Yes, you're right. I did figure it out from reading and constructed the example to try it out. >There are quite a lot of obscure legality incompatibilities of this type >if you start hunting. The compatibility guide is limited to things that >one expects to be a problem in real life! Hmm, it's no big deal but I would say my example, although contrived, was no more obscure than some of the things already in Rationale X.6.2 which are "considered to be unlikely in normal programs". Gavin Finnie