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 10.107.84.8 with SMTP id i8mr891773iob.66.1519383899474; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:04:59 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.14.124 with SMTP id n57mr52524otd.3.1519383899124; Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:04:59 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!w142no722793ita.0!news-out.google.com!s63ni2165itb.0!nntp.google.com!o66no719000ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 03:04:58 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <0a5bf4d8-16a5-491e-8dc3-4dad835fb6eb@googlegroups.com> Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=176.130.29.212; posting-account=6yLzewoAAABoisbSsCJH1SPMc9UrfXBH NNTP-Posting-Host: 176.130.29.212 References: <3c869714-ed23-42dd-b0de-4521733da615@googlegroups.com> <0a5bf4d8-16a5-491e-8dc3-4dad835fb6eb@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: alternative elsif branch not tested From: briot.emmanuel@gmail.com Injection-Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 11:04:59 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Received-Body-CRC: 729336559 X-Received-Bytes: 1713 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50597 Date: 2018-02-23T03:04:58-08:00 List-Id: On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 11:51:55 AM UTC+1, Mehdi Saada wrote: > got it ! in "Argument (1)'Length /= 1 and ARGUMENT(1)(1) not in 'n'|'c'|'N'|'C'" Also the use of "(1)" is kind of suspicious, generally speaking. Use "Argument (Argument'First)" instead. The second "(1)" is also suspicious and should be replaced similarly.