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: 103376,74a56083ffbe573d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Zoo question Date: 1996/08/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 175414787 references: <320F16B6.6944@lmtas.lmco.com> <3210A142.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <3211C462.19D9@lmtas.lmco.com> <3212468B.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> <321301EC.2C4D@lmtas.lmco.com> <32185FC3.2781E494@escmail.orl.mmc.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-20T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: T.E.D. said "That does seem to jibe with 5.2(3-4) in my Ada 83 LRM. However, I could have sworn I saw a rather long discussion here a year ago about compiler optimizations moving constraint checks out of loops. I suppose this is still possible, as long as there aren't any declare blocks (or is it?)." I hope this is clear now, but this is wrong. Furthermore. 52.(3-4) has nothing to do with the case (except that it is where the canonical order in which the constraint error is clearly raised at the assignment, is described). In the absence of permission for movinbg things around in 11.6, this would be decisive, but there is no rule in 11.6 that allows moving an exception outside its proper exception frame (the language would be completely useless if this were allowed).