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=3.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,INVALID_DATE, MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!lll-lcc!seismo!mimsy!dday From: dday@mimsy.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: language problem Message-ID: <6109@mimsy.UUCP> Date: Fri, 3-Apr-87 09:49:16 EST Article-I.D.: mimsy.6109 Posted: Fri Apr 3 09:49:16 1987 Date-Received: Sun, 5-Apr-87 03:31:35 EST References: <12291366595.33.BRYAN@Sierra.Stanford.EDU> <12291368304.48.ROSENBLUM@Sierra.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: dday@mimsy.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday) Distribution: world Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742 Summary: DEC Ada 1.3 misses it, too List-Id: In article <12291368304.48.ROSENBLUM@Sierra.Stanford.EDU> ROSENBLUM@SIERRA.STANFORD.EDU (David S. Rosenblum) writes: >I think that the LRM is pretty clear on this point. > You are right, but it must have been missed by almost everybody. I tried the same program out on DEC Ada V1.3; the results were the same (the operation completed successfully without raising CONSTRAINT_ERROR). But if it is impossible to efficiently handle type and constraint checking for every possible pathological boundary condition then I have to come down strongly in favor of efficient implementation of constructs that programmers are actually going to use. -- UUCP: seismo!mimsy!dday Dennis Doubleday CSNet: dday@mimsy University of Maryland ARPA: dday@brillig.umd.edu College Park, MD 20742 Fan of: Chicago Cubs, Chicago Bears, OU Sooners (301) 454-6154