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: 103376,29ffcfebbad909d0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two more AQS-95 questions
Date: 1998/02/03
Message-ID: <dewar.886511060@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 321659269
References: <34D60055.1FFF@gc057.fw.hac.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 886511751 11532 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-02-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Wes says


<<1)  In 3.2.6, why "use a constant ... when the value must be static"
    but "named numbers, ... whenever possible."  Isn't a named number
    static?  Is there an advantage to a (typed) constant for
    "staticness" ?
>>


This is totally incorrect advice. Not just harmless, but actively harmful.

Named numbers are untyped. Their use is only appropriate if from a
conceptual point of view, the constant value *is* untyped, for example

  pi : constant := 3.14....

is OK, because conceptually pi is an untyped pure number.

If a constant is typed, then it is definitely MUCH more desirable to
type the constant, so that you get proper type checking on its use.