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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5ccd8ee851fe2e00
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Record aggregate question (language lawyer needed!)
Date: 1996/06/21
Message-ID: <DtD7Kn.ACy@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 161434150
references: <mcriley.835361851@BIX.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
keywords: record aggregate bug
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <mcriley.835361851@BIX.com>, mcriley on BIX <mcriley@BIX.com> wrote:
>   type Task_Record_Type is
>	record
>	    Originator : String (1 .. 20);
>	    Header_Dtg : String (1 .. 12);
>	end record;
>	
>    Task_Record : Task_Record_Type := (others => (others => ' '));

This is fine -- no exception should be raised.  The inner aggregate
needds to get evaluated twice, and will have different bounds those two
times.

IMHO, "others" should not have been allowed in record aggregates -- only
in array aggregates.  It's just too weird, and it causes an unreasonable
amount of implementation difficulty.

- Bob