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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	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
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!LLL-ICDC.ARPA!pearson%anchor.DECnet
From: pearson%anchor.DECnet@LLL-ICDC.ARPA ("ANCHOR::PEARSON")
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Why is "for i in 1..2*2 loop" illegal?
Message-ID: <8607102356.AA28600@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Thu, 10-Jul-86 18:50:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8607102356.AA28600
Posted: Thu Jul 10 18:50:00 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Jul-86 04:40:20 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: "ANCHOR::PEARSON" <pearson%anchor.decnet@lll-icdc.ARPA>
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Our VAX Ada compiler reads me the riot act when I say
	"for I in 1..2*2 loop".
(Specifically, it says:

	Base type {universal_integer} is not allowed for the
	discrete range of a constrained array definition,
	iteration rule, or index of an entry familys

	Default resolution to INTEGER does not apply because
	an expression is not a literal, named number or
	attribute; however, INTEGER assumed

A slightly fancier version of this compiler points me to LRM section
3.6.1 paragraph 2.)

    I imagine that this trivial expression (2*2) is somehow a representative
of a Bigger Problem, an understanding of which would allow me to see why
2*2 is unmanageably more difficult than 4. But I can't seem to grok the
big picture. If you have an explanation ( TARGET_IQ => 86 ), I'd appreciate
seeing it.

  -  Peter.
(pearson%anchor.decnet@lll-icdc.arpa)
------