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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,XPRIO autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,74e0716429aeb760,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-10 05:59:24 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!195.158.233.21!news1.ebone.net!news.ebone.net!news1.fra.nextra.com!nextra.com!nl.uu.net.MISMATCH!bnewspeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsifeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewspost00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!read.news.be.uu.net!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:25:56 +0200
Message-ID: <E472188161D5D311B08700105AF4CAAA04C99F35@kuumex03.barco.com>
From: "Rammeloo Stijn" <stijn.rammeloo@barco.com>
Subject: simple question just to be sure
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.barco.com
X-Trace: 1002718763 read.news.be.uu.net 7117 194.7.240.11
X-Complaints-To: abuse@be.uu.net
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14143
Date: 2001-10-10T10:25:56+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Hello,

According to me the following constructs are equivalent and are both
perfectly legal ada in ada83 and ada95:

    Bad_Frame_Name : constant String (1 .. 4) := "Bad" & Ascii.Nul;

   A_Nul : constant Character:=  Ascii.Nul;
   Bad_Frame_Name : constant String (1 .. 4) := "Bad" & A_Nul;

Why do I ask? We use a code analyses tool that stumbles over the first
construct with the error message "Bad_Frame_Name Value length 5 does not
match object length 4" but not over the second one. According to me this is
clearly a bug in the code analyses tool. According to the vendor, this 'odd'
behaviour would be caused by the fact that the first construct 'May not be
"perfect" Ada' but the second is. I totaly disagree with this statement. Can
some ada-guru out there confirm I'm right or, if not, why I'm wrong?

Thanks in foresee,
Stijn