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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4fb6ec6cd054de65 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-11 13:05:59 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: anh_vo@udlp.com (Anh_Vo) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: constrained subtypes Date: 11 Mar 2002 13:05:58 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5a59d6a9.0203111305.4db3321f@posting.google.com> References: <3c8cc63b$1@pull.gecm.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.168.132.186 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1015880759 1878 127.0.0.1 (11 Mar 2002 21:05:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Mar 2002 21:05:59 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21079 Date: 2002-03-11T21:05:59+00:00 List-Id: "George Stevens" wrote in message news:<3c8cc63b$1@pull.gecm.com>... > We're trying to use subtypes of base integer, constraining them 1 .. 8 > (i.e. static values) > When we use these types in a case statement, covering values 1 - 8, the > Aonix Ada compiler (7.1.2) complains that we haven't defined "others". > However, we shouldn't need to, as all cases are within the constrained > limits. I've looked at Programming in Ada 95 - Barnes (p106) which seems to > suggest that we're doing the right thing language-wise, so long as the range > limits are static types. > > Is this a compiler funny or an Ada funny? Neither is with information given. That leaves to the third source. Please post the source codes, so others can have a chance to look at them. In fact, this post did not contain enough information to draw any conclusion. A. Vo