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,da74d35864a7d542
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Discriminant as default initial value
Date: 1997/03/30
Message-ID: <dewar.859749200@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 229493377
References: <199703301300_MC2-1377-42B7@compuserve.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<Scott,
     I tried both versions of your example using GNAT 3.09 for OS/2, and
found no problems. Maybe it is just the Windows version of GNAT playing up
again.
                                 Kees de Lezenne Coulander>>

No, it works fine in the windows version too. This was a very vague report,
I paid little attention to it. If people think they have found a problem
in GNAT, it should be properly written up, formatted according to the
suggestions in gnatinfo.txt, and sent to report@gnat.com.

The trouble with vague reports is that you can't really clearly tell what
is being reported. In this case, I tried an instance of what I could best
guess was being reported, and it worked fine, but I do't really know,
since all we have is a vague claim that something did not work. In my
experience it is not worth chasing bug reports unless they are clear and
well documented -- they often turn out to be misunderstandings etc, and
even if they are real bugs, extracting the real bug can be difficult.