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: 103376,113cbde0422b98e8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Why no constraint error?
Date: 1997/03/22
Message-ID: <E7GAL1.1Ky@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 227534980
References: <E7EHzv.MHq@world.std.com> <E7G5q1.J8q.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <E7G5q1.J8q.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>,
Tucker Taft <stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com> wrote:
>Well Bob, I believe GNAT is technically right in this one, ...

Can you quote chapter and verse, to show where my analysis was wrong?
(Legalistically, I mean -- ignoring issues of what's
desirable/efficient/etc.)

- Bob