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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.160.74 with SMTP id m10mr1179155qax.6.1394732312292; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.43.131 with SMTP id w3mr75760igl.9.1394732312177; Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Path: backlog1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!hw13no4120750qab.1!news-out.google.com!gi6ni105igc.0!nntp.google.com!l13no6019795iga.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:38:31 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <3d90b1df-4d18-4097-aa26-e727defd26ba@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <56f4b7b3-c598-4555-b1c5-fdae08c97897@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Profile mismatch? From: adambeneschan@gmail.com Injection-Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:38:32 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185164 Date: 2014-03-13T10:38:31-07:00 List-Id: On Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:35:40 AM UTC-7, Simon Wright wrote: > > In Ada 95, which didn't have "not null", the rules said that > > parameters in that position were required to be non-null. When "not > > null" was added to Ada 2005, the decision was made to allow, but not > > require, the "not null" on controlling parameters, for backward > > compatibility. That's not the case for parameters in other positions, > > which is why you may see "not subtype conformant" errors. >=20 > This is what GNAT is doing (I take it you don't actually mean > "position"; in the first case "access T" had to be non-null in Ada 95, > and in the second case it's non-controlling parameters). "Situation" might have been a better word. In any case, by "parameters in = other positions" I meant "non-controlling parameters". And you're right th= at all access parameters were non-null in Ada 95, which I forgot, but only = the controlling parameters are now implicitly null-excluding if there is no= explicit "not null". -- Adam