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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.69.13.226 with SMTP id fb2mr29369053pbd.0.1436574547915;
        Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.50.67.100 with SMTP id m4mr34047igt.12.1436574547884; Fri,
 10 Jul 2015 17:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!qs7no3658153igc.0!news-out.google.com!a16ni14335ign.0!nntp.google.com!qs7no3658150igc.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:29:07 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mnph7b$elv$1@loke.gir.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=118.93.184.33;
 posting-account=g6PEmwoAAADhFsmVm6Epjviaw4MLU0b5
NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.93.184.33
References: <df6857dc-ffca-4468-898b-3bf001a789b6@googlegroups.com>
 <mno5d2$s8e$1@dont-email.me> <mnph7b$elv$1@loke.gir.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b511d0b6-96a8-4875-a498-008ac39ae331@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Possible bug?
From: Anatoly Chernyshev <achernyshev@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2015 00:29:07 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:26759
Date: 2015-07-10T17:29:07-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Right. I guess, I became overrelaxed at Ada's capacity to straighten up whatever stupid things I could put in the code.

> > No. What happens is that it constructs an initialization aggregate whose
> > bounds are (n_d, 2), and then raises Constraint_Error because the bounds
> > of the initial value do not match those of the variable. That's exactly
> > what the warning is telling you.
> 
> Right. More generally, "out of range" errors are always reported at runtime; 
> compilers often give a warning but they're not allowed to reject the 
> program. That's because perfectly sensible programs might contain an "out of 
> range" error in code that will never be executed, and one would be very 
> annoyed if the program was rejected.