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: 103376,22dff575e187f5a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Passing arrays as record fields
Date: 1997/06/14
Message-ID: <dewar.866289089@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 248333054
References: <33A00D4C.F4E@taz.dra.hmg.gb>
 <mheaney-ya023680001306972025020001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<<mjgallagher@taz.dra.hmg.gb> wrote:
 
 
>  type Count_t is Integer range 0 .. Integer'Last;
>  type Count_a is array (Integer range <>) of Count_t;
>  type Net_t(... N_Neurons: Count_t ...) is record
>    ...
>    Neuron_Counts: Count_a(N_Neurons);
>    ...
>  end record;
>
>and a procedure
>
>  procedure Initialise(Net: in out Net_t);>>



I am certainly much less of a fanatic on the issue of avoiding the use of
predefined types like Integer than many others, but the above declarations
seem to use Integer quite gratuitously. Surely the bound that is spelled
as Integer'Last in the above should be a value driven by the design of
the abstraction???