Re: Constraint checking of actuals passed to Attributes

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <8f9a87$97r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8f99gf$8eo$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>   Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:
>
> > It does seem that this constrains the possible effects to just
> > the object in question.
>
> If you say so, I guess people can read all sorts of things into
> a vague requirement that is not well stated. I certainly don't
> see the slightest hint to justify this viewpoint. It only talks
> about other values becoming abnormal, not about being affected
> in other ways, e.g. having values outside their subtype.

Not having to have ever written a full Ada compiler, I'm not as
aquainted with the nuances of the meaning of "abnormal" as it pertains
to objects as many others here are. But my reading of the context of
13.9.1("Data Validity":3-7) implies more or less just that. It talks
about objects that are "normal" having valid values for their type.

So it would seem that any requirement to keep objects "normal" means
that they cannot have garbage values placed in them. What am I missing?

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.