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: 103376,74a56083ffbe573d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Zoo question
Date: 1996/08/15
Message-ID: <Dw6nDK.8s8@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 174354333
references: <3211EA8F.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
 <4usukc$p47@zeus.orl.mmc.com> <321207F7.4D24@lmtas.lmco.com>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <321207F7.4D24@lmtas.lmco.com>,
Ken Garlington  <garlingtonke@lmtas.lmco.com> wrote:
>Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to not generate a range
>check when assigning a value of 6 to an object declared with range 1 .. 5?

The only answer to the "brain teaser" I can think of, is that checks
were suppressed in some code containing the code shown (or globally, on
the command line or whatever).  If that's it, then I say, "No fair, it's
a trick question!"  ;-)

- Bob