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: 103376,206123971e05e480
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: "constant X renames" (language-lawyers)
Date: 1996/12/13
Message-ID: <E2Bx75.20t@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 203819610
references: <9612111834.AA12317@most>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-12-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <9612111834.AA12317@most>,
W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM> wrote:
>Was this "feature" planned, or just an accident/side-effect?  There is no
>specific language about it to indicate it was thought of.

8.5.1(6) makes it pretty clear that this is an intended "feature".
Yeah, it's kind of strange.  It might make more sense if renamings had
to declare what they are, and have it checked that you said it right.
The following is particularly confusing:

    X: Integer := 99;
    subtype S is Integer range 1..10;
    Y: S renames X;

since the range 1..10 is completely ignored.

- Bob