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: 103376,91252b9c8cd8fe72,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Record Aggregate Bug
Date: 1996/06/21
Message-ID: <dewar.835396204@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 162021187
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <mcriley.835361851@BIX.com>, mcriley on BIX <mcriley@BIX.com> wrote:
   type Task_Record_Type is
       record
           Originator : String (1 .. 20);
           Header_Dtg : String (1 .. 12);
       end record;

    Task_Record : Task_Record_Type := (others => (others => ' '));"

This is perfectly fine (T.E.D. worried about the subtypes being different,
but the relevant RM quote talks about same types, not same subtypes).
These declarations compile and execute fine on GNAT.

I don't however like this coding style very much, it is definitely
obscure, I think others is better avoided in record aggregates, and
would far prefer to see

    Task_Record := Task_Record_Type := (Originator => (others => ' '),
                                        Header_Dtg => (others => ' '));

Much clearer (and presumably as a bonus will work past the bug on the
other unnamed compiler :-)