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,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5095dad989e89e23
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-12-13 07:50:11 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.mesh.ad.jp!news-hub.siol.net!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Does a null pointer always raise Constraint_Error?
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2000 15:40:56 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <9185a6$mut$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10011301306120.793-100000@lexis.di.fct.unl.pt>
 <tgzoihpon4.fsf@mercury.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <9074fi$93b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <3A3253B1.AD8F32CF@ebox.tninet.se> <90u1vi$uah$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <90ukfm$c4p$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A36511D.973D82BD@nowhere.com>
 <yec1yvdtmf1.fsf@king.cts.com> <916gsr$e6e$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <slrn93eect.i1.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <IeLZ5.7495$bw.651358@news.flash.net>
 <slrn93f1ic.vo.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <tgn1e0mkqh.fsf@mercury.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.41
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Dec 13 15:40:56 2000 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x52.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.41
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3067
Date: 2000-12-13T15:40:56+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article
<tgn1e0mkqh.fsf@mercury.rus.uni-stuttgart.de>,
  Florian Weimer
<Florian.Weimer@RUS.Uni-Stuttgart.DE> wrote:
> There a two language-defined checks involved prior
> to the array comparison.  However, 11.6(5) seems to
> permit the omission of these checks, but I'm not
> sure about that.

Nobody is sure about 11.6 :-)

I don't think it applies however. Why not? Because
the program does indeed depend on the result of this
comparison. If you did

  Junk := a.all = b.all;

and never referenced junk, then you could use
11.6(5) to argue that the check should be omitted.


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/