Re: discontinuous subtype without aspect

[Mehdi Saada <00120260a@gmail.com>]

> ...because people didn't want set constraints. I still fail to understand
why, as you point out, a static predicate is not quite a replacement. 
It is a replacement, but I thought it was a shame there existed now, two syntaxic constructs to express the same things.
subtype FOO is BAR range Val5..Val6;
subtype FOO is BAR with STATIC_PREDICATE => FOO in membership_choice;
The second can express much more, but they still overlap, which isn't nice and clean.
Beside, I get it that a range is continuous by definition, but I still think "range 1..5|8..9" could be read as "range 1..5 and range 8..9" or "in 1..5|8..9". Forbide that for arrays, and that would be it.
Or better, I can subtype FOO is BAR in Val5..Val6|Val10; No need for range at all anymore, even for arrays. "in" is all that's needed. Fewer keywords too. A tool could also easily, for matter of compatibility, parse existing code and change every and each "range X..Y" by "in X..Y", and qualify X and Y by the parent's subtype's name.
Is that what you mean by set constraints ?