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,feb9db77c9b5b310
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Access to Unconstrained Arrays
Date: 1997/04/20
Message-ID: <dewar.861547435@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 236155504
References: <335507B4.7A03@boeing.com> <1997Apr18.141618.10240@ocsystems.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Joel said

<<I think your compiler is stopping at the first error or something.  Our
compiler says that both calls are incorrect.  List1 and List2 are arrays,
NOT access values.  So, neither call matches the procedure profile. In
fact, List2 IS constrained.  It is given a constraint when it is
initialized.  If your program were to assign (1,2) to either list it would
raise a constraint error (the same as for list1).>>

Of course the program is incorrect as presented, but one has to assume
that was just a typo introduced in preparation. if you make the obvious
changes, there is *indeed* a subtle difference between the two cases,
see my previous post.