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: 103376,113cbde0422b98e8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why no constraint error?
Date: 1997/03/22
Message-ID: <dewar.859021939@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 227551453
References: <5gs20s$2g11@prime.imagin.net> <5gs81q$114r@prime.imagin.net>
 <E7EHzv.MHq@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<Unfortunately, 13.9.1(11) is a loophole you could drive a truck through.
The assumption is that compilers will be reasonable.  There's some AARM
discussion on this point.  But this para is irrelevant to your example.>>

I was always amazed that Bob could seriously suggest that all assignment
statements must do range checks. In some cases, especially with arrays
where you can never prove that elements are uninitialized in practice,
you can slow things down by a large factor with this decision.

Furthermore, in practice putting these range checks in has almost no
effect (that's an empirical observation from experimentation). So what
is being suggested here makes no sense to me, and seems completely
*unreasonable*.

For GNAT, part of "will be reasonable" is "will be reasonably efficient",
so I agree with your assumption, and so does GNAT!