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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,a170b67591224b59
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Pat Rogers" <progers@acm.org>
Subject: Re: subtype of value passed to pragma Interrupt_Priority
Date: 1998/10/01
Message-ID: <6v08fv$l5o$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 396721905
References: <6utver$30u$1@uuneo.neosoft.com>
 <slrn7175sn.78e.franke@pax01f.mipool.uni-jena.de>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
Organization: NeoSoft, Inc.  
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-10-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Frank Ecke wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 14:05:57 -0500, Pat Rogers <progers@acm.org>
wrote:
>
>> Why isn't the subtype Interrupt_Priority the target for the
>> conversion for pragma Interrupt_Priority, instead of subtype
>> Any_Priority?
>
>The Rationale says in D.1.3 ``Base Priority Specification'':
>
>``The Interrupt_Priority pragma is also allowed to specify
priorities below
>interrupt level, so that it is possible to write reusable code
modules
>containing priority specifications, where the actual priority is a
parameter.''

I don't see how the parameterization makes any difference to the
question of why it should be allowed.

>
>   If the conversion were to Interrupt_Priority, you would not be
able to
>specify an interrupt priority less than Priority'Last + 1.

Exactly my puzzlement.  Why should we be able to specify a value
with pragma Interrupt_Priority that is not in subtype
Interrupt_Priority?  Why should that be allowed, parameter or not?

>Hope this helps.

Thanks for pointing out the Rationale's text on the question!  I
haven't looked there in a long time, and should have thought to do
so (although in this case it doesn't shed light for me).