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,c3a7c1845ec5caf9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Equality operator overloading in ADA 83
Date: 1997/04/27
Message-ID: <E99woM.8KL@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237617164
References: <01bc4e9b$ac0e7fa0$72041dc2@lightning> <dewar.862054383@merv>
 <E99L96.LwI@world.std.com> <dewar.862097259@merv>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.862097259@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>One postscript to my previous comment. It is NOT ambiguous whether there
>is a requirement for composability of equality for Bounded_String in the
>RM in the absence of the AI. It is crystal clear that there is no such
>requirement!
>
>The AI is not addressing the ambiguity of the requirement, it is adding a
>requirement where none existed previously!

Quite true.  The RM (without this AI) clearly allows "=" of
Bounded_String to compose, or to not compose.

- Bob