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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,df40d0d1975a16a6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-18 13:58:52 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: Brian.Gaffney@myrealbox.com (Brian Gaffney)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Optimizing Boundary Checks
Date: 18 Jun 2003 13:58:51 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5e9b8c34.0306181258.54912aad@posting.google.com>
References: <slrnbejegn.in.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <bccjsp$lid$1@hercules.btinternet.com>
 <bcckq8$i67ah$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
 <bccnjt$pcr$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
 <bccpn8$hogis$1@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de> <3EEB5934.1000107@attbi.com>
 <bck9e8$i1s1h$5@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 137.244.215.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1055969931 28662 127.0.0.1 (18 Jun 2003 20:58:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Jun 2003 20:58:51 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39410
Date: 2003-06-18T20:58:51+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vinzent Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com> wrote in message news:<bck9e8$i1s1h$5@ID-175126.news.dfncis.de>...
> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> 
> >Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> >
> > > I can imagine situations (especially with subtypes) where it could be
> > > handy to use the variables' type instead of an explicit type
> > > specification.
> >
> >You will need a better justification than that!
> 
> Of course.
> 
> >But there is one. ;-)  A discrete variable declaration can have an 
> >explict range in its subtype indication:
> >
> >Size: Integer range 0 .. 1000;
> 
> Well, IMO that's bad style anyway.
> 
Vinzent,
   It doesn't matter if you like the justification, as long as you get
the feature you want ;-)

   I would think there would be another argument for this, similar to
the argument for using constants.  Just as you don't want hard-coded
values sprinkled through your code because you might need to change
their values, you may not want hard-coded types since you might want
to change the (sub)type of an object.

   I don't think either of these arguments is very strong, but I can't
imagine implementing this would be too difficult (famous last words!).

                     --Brian