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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1b3cf847f22f6902,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-10-17 21:43:24 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!uunet!sea.uu.net!ash.uu.net!news.chatlink.com!not-for-mail
From: "Keith" <nono@joimail.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Array type conversion
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:43:13 -0700
Organization: OWDS Inc.
Sender: e27182818@dialup-63.212.130.239.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net
Message-ID: <aoo3h9$s7u$1@news.chatlink.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialup-63.212.130.239.dial1.losangeles1.level3.net
X-Trace: news.chatlink.com 1034916202 28926 63.212.130.239 (18 Oct 2002
 04:43:22 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@chatlink.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 04:43:22 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29890
Date: 2002-10-17T21:43:13-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

What is the implementation consequence of not following  Ada reference
manual section 4.6 12/1 "The component subtypes shall statically match"?

What was the rational behind not allowing something like the following:

type some_type is new integer;
type A is array ( index_type) of integer;
type B is array ( index_type) of some_type;
Array_A:A;
Array_B:B;


declare

begin
    Array_A:=A( Array_B);

end;

Rather than the legal but more cumbersome

   for Index in index_type'range loop
      Array_A(Index):=A(Array_B(Index));
   end loop;

I know that if the component subtypes have to statically match in an array
conversion then  there is no need to check for matching constraints at run
time like Ada 83. Does this speed up execution?

But
Array_A:=A( Array_B);

seems more inline with the spirit of Ada Array operations like A+B etc.
Thanks
--
Keith