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: 103376,133de21eb82605b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: How do functions return unbounded arrays?
Date: 1998/06/21
Message-ID: <dewar.898439913@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 364717362
References: <358444BA.757121D8@cl.cam.ac.uk>
 <1998061518584100.OAA28557@ladder01.news.aol.com>
 <35865075.9D7DCBD@cl.cam.ac.uk> <6m80o6$9st$1@erlang.praxis-cs.co.uk>
 <35879C27.634A3E0@praxis-cs.co.uk>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 898439991 16347 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Rod said

<<In Ada95 (and thus SPARK95), things are much better, since the definition
of "static" covers a much larger set of expressions, and the RM's implementatio
advice gives you a pretty clear idea of what to expect.
>>


I guess that means that Gavin misspoke when he mentioned that SPARK only
handles concatenation of string literals, as opposed to static string
expressions. Can we indeed assume that SPARK95 allows ALL static
expressions as defined in the RM (there is certainly no reason not to!)