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=1.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM,FREEMAIL_REPLYTO,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bc2c82b1e5c6fe83
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.132.69 with SMTP id os5mr4824853pbb.6.1330356779723;
        Mon, 27 Feb 2012 07:32:59 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 h9ni15587pbe.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!dedekind.zen.co.uk!zen.net.uk!hamilton.zen.co.uk!reader02.news.zen.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Phil Thornley <phil.jpthornley@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Question about out parameters of unconstrained array type.
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:32:57 -0000
Message-ID: <MPG.29b5b16ea55019b398968d@news.zen.co.uk>
References: <I8qdndMrnK9zZtXS4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
 <MPG.29b336d065dea044989689@news.zen.co.uk> <m2obsmk7hl.fsf@pushface.org>
 <MPG.29b37490d1cb99be98968a@news.zen.co.uk>
 <4e2c786f-8485-436f-b9c5-c8c19cf00805@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: phil.jpthornley@gmail.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4
Organization: Zen Internet
NNTP-Posting-Host: 1cb0af5a.news.zen.co.uk
X-Trace: 
 DXC=m_XPVH?F?kkkIQlb@g3\?fYjZGX^207Pk`<MJMoM3PFmHnjkL[Jn:4o6JNOYoB;SJnQ1nSLQ\OWhn7b\B2C6L<fo
X-Complaints-To: abuse@zen.co.uk
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: 2012-02-27T15:32:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4e2c786f-8485-436f-b9c5-c8c19cf00805
@q12g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, mark.lorenzen@gmail.com says...
> 
> On 25 Feb., 23:44, Phil Thornley <phil.jpthorn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Would SPARK accept
> >
> > > � �for I in S'Range loop
> >
> > > ?
> >
> > No - the subtype of the loop index is still regarded as anonymous.
> 
> Phil
> 
> Do you know the rationale for this? Why can't the examiner just
> generate hypotheses like
> 
> loop__1__i <= s__index__subtype__1__last
> loop__1__i >= s__index__subtype__1__first
> 
> and then generate appropriate hypotheses regarding
> s__index__subtype__1__last and s__index__subtype__1__first?

Mark,

I don't know of any specific reasoning, but the rule that an explicit 
subtype mark must be given is a fundamental rule in the grammar, so I 
guess there would have to be a very substantial gain from modifying it 
before such a change was considered.

Cheers,

Phil