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: 103376,483a6309b2450e41
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 case statement incompatibility?
Date: 1996/08/28
Message-ID: <dewar.841211969@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 176957652
references: <4vv4bs$hb8@erlang.praxis.co.uk>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Gavin says

"In practice, these problems are not likely to occur in many programs since the
usual approach would be to use an 'others' clause to cover values outside the
subtype. However, I am surprised that this issue has not been mentioned in the
Ada 95 documentation.
"

Exactly, it is quite hard to believe that you found this in a real program,
surely you just figured it out from reading.

There are quite a lot of obscure legality incompatibilities of this type
if you start hunting. The compatibility guide is limited to things that
one expects to be a problem in real life!