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: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Zoo question
Date: 1996/08/15
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Aug15102657@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 174368144
references: <3211EA8F.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
 <4usukc$p47@zeus.orl.mmc.com>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, 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> writes:

  > 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?

   Hardware failure or a program which was already erroneous. (Please,
no religous decussion over what forms of reasoning from erroneousness
are acceptable.  Save that for ARG meetings. ;-)

   Seriously the Zoo program as posted doesn't raise any serious
issues.  The programmer may expect the 'SUCC call to raise
Contraint_Error, but it will be raised immediately afterwords.  Now if
the variable is declared to be of the base type not the subtype, there
is a hard to find bug, but Ada makes it real hard to code that way.
In fact I suspect that that was the intended program, and it got
corrected automatically by the author as it was being typed in.

    I've run into this problem before in ARG discussions, it is often
hard to post code fragments which correctly demonstrate an anomaly
because my fingers automatically clean up the poor code as I type it.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...