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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,d00514eb0749375b
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: initialize an array (1-D) at elaboration using an expression
 based on the index?
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:01:06 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen
Message-ID: <i9atgl$ijp$1@munin.nbi.dk>
References: <i9amkr$goj$1@speranza.aioe.org>
 <op.vkm4yasm0k3wt7@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <4b8f7f06-a817-4545-9fc6-67740c67b9d3@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1287190870 19065 69.95.181.76 (16 Oct 2010 01:01:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 01:01:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5931
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:15527
Date: 2010-10-15T20:01:06-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com> wrote in message 
news:4b8f7f06-a817-4545-9fc6-67740c67b9d3@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
...
>It seems like it would be simple to add syntax to array aggregates in
>the language like
>
>a : array(1..N) of Float := (for I in 1..N => Float(I)*Float(I));
>
>The legality rules and rules about applicable index constraints would
>be the same as if "for I in" were not present.

There was a proposal to allow this for Ada 9x. It got dropped somewhere 
along the line (don't recall why, might simply have been "scope reduction"). 
It hasn't been reconsidered since, so far as I remember.

                               Randy.