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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: I am not understanding user defined exceptions
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 07:43:23 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyo9ybg678.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <6cb6e781-c6df-4962-99e3-760e7c7fab88@googlegroups.com>
	<k3ba9chta4hqdcv4q6npmrdbffsnfeoi8l@4ax.com>
	<o73tvs$je$1@dont-email.me> <lyshntg9yh.fsf@pushface.org>
	<o7fm37$4ir$1@dont-email.me> <wcc4m04jj3c.fsf@TheWorld.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="fb7b1721175eb346700d208f0f42cd66";
	logging-data="15456"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hZ1oqjs1PTHAAkah9oq+cQzfJCtISSZY="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:xYxTxgL09F5VT4G/MmpfZnoTk5o=
	sha1:qSB6rqh7oVSz9dU1pj70EW7Pl58=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33280
Date: 2017-02-09T07:43:23+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert A Duff <bobduff@TheWorld.com> writes:

> Georg Bauhaus <nonlegitur@futureapps.invalid> writes:
>
>> Does it work in the static sense when, e.g. a case 
>> statement needs to cover precisely the values of
>> Exclude_One at compile time?
>
> Yes.  In GNAT, Predicate is equivalent to Static_Predicate if that
> would be legal, otherwise it's equivalent to Dynamic_Predicate.  You
> get all the nice full coverage rules in case statements and array
> aggregates and so forth.

Good, but I have to admit the strength of Randy's point re:
maintainability. Would it be possible for GNAT have a diagnostic option
to state whether explicit Static_Predicate would be OK? (you could tell
me to just try Static_Predicate first!)