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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!husc6!cca!mirror!ishmael!ada-uts!stt
From: stt@ada-uts
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about discrimiants
Message-ID: <57900035@ada-uts>
Date: Fri, 10-Jul-87 12:11:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ada-uts.57900035
Posted: Fri Jul 10 12:11:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jul-87 06:58:33 EDT
References: <2079@enea.UUCP>
Nf-ID: #R:enea.UUCP:-207900:ada-uts:57900035:000:491
Nf-From: ada-uts!stt    Jul 10 12:11:00 1987
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I think it was strictly an implementability issue.
As a compiler-writer, I certainly sympathize with
the restriction.  As a user of Ada, I agree the restriction
seems arbitrary and not philosophically justifiable.

By the way, the expression is not "static" in the
normal Ada sense, since the value of a discriminant
is not a static expression.

Finally, a record type definition must end with "end record;"
rather than simply "end;"

Tucker Taft
c/o Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138