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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,aaabba5db6b5df34
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: AdaMagica <christoph.grein@eurocopter.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Min/Max attribute makes promises it can't keep
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 04:47:42 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <8ab2d2d1-b7dc-47bf-824f-4cab334a3fd6@11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <98b7e6f2-32ed-465c-9a52-541b7878ca86@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<9b17e781-f46a-4384-8809-b16602d10114@y30g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
	<wcczl0o7g13.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <880dc0f0-7fff-440d-8aad-6ce745fcfed8@h27g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
	<246a7cec-bd5f-4c48-a6cb-3874080c19ab@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
	<591866ec-fa46-440c-b6fc-3092985ae3df@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.156.44.178
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1272455263 27679 127.0.0.1 (28 Apr 2010 11:47:43
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:47:43 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 11g2000yqr.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.156.44.178;
	posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.2; WOW64;
	.NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10257
Date: 2010-04-28T04:47:42-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> > But the prefix of an attribute reference does not specify a
> > constraint.
>
> > Integer'Min, Positive'Min, Natural'Min are all the same.
>
> But it should, at least in the case of Min/Max.
> Integer'Min, Positive'Min, Natural'Min being all the same breaches the
> spirit of the Ada language (what you see is what it means).
> A topic for Ada 201z...

We could have had is thus and unconstrained Min as Positive'Base'Min
when Min was introduced...

But it is as it is, and your proposal would be a severe
incompatibility, so it won't fly.