In article <3A3E888E.E897AF0F@libertysurf.fr>,
  Thierry&Annick <tajz@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> Robert Dewar a �crit :
>
> > In article <3A3D01EA.37CB440B@libertysurf.fr>,
> >   Thierry&Annick <tajz@libertysurf.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > test.ada:13:38: invalid operand types for operator "-"
> > > test.ada:13:38: left operand has type "Index_Type"
defined
> >                                                 at
test.ada:2
> > > test.ada:13:38: right operand has type "Index_Type"
defined
> > ...
>
> > Feel free to suggest how GNAT could make this clearer (and
> > submit your suggestion to report@gnat.com). I don't really
> > see any way of making this clearer.
>
> I suggest 'no binary operator "-" for enumeration type
> Index_Type'


Well the error messages that it giving now give this
information in a much more precise form, by telling you
that there is no "-" operator for the particular types
you used, and then telling you what those types are.
So in fact your suggestion here would give less information.

What would be useful is to explain what was unclear about
the original message. We want to make the message as clear
as possible, but we don't want to lose information doing do
(indeed the addition of the operand types in the error messages
was done fairly recently, and has proved extremely helpful).



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