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,d57302f2954365e1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Question about base types
Date: 1997/02/11
Message-ID: <EACHUS.97Feb11181622@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 218126916
references: <mheaney-ya023280002601971414080001@news.ni.net>
 <E4oE3q.1tq@world.std.com>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.855492829@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

  > 5.   for y'Address use x;
  >                        |
  > >>> invalid address clause for initialized object "y"
  > >>> reference to variable "x" not allowed (RM 13.1(22))

   Boy, I don't like that one, but for a different reason.  I think
that any diagnostic for an implementation dependent rule should say
so.  i.e.  "reference to variable "x" not allowed by GNAT (see RM
13.1(22))" would be much more helpful, even to non-novice users.

     When porting code from one system to another these are the messages
that show up.  Somethimes the workaround is easy sometimes hard, but
it is a royal PAIN to spend time searching for why the blasted thing
doesn't work.  A diagonstic like this will have users looking at what
has been changed in the declaration of x, rather than starting to work
on the real problem.


--

					Robert I. Eachus

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