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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d85498ce48b190f0,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: matthewsj@saic.com (John B. Mattehws, M.D.)
Subject: Slicing & sliding
Date: 1999/04/23
Message-ID: <matthewsj-ya023680002304991515390001@news.saic.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 470088951
Content-transfer-encoding: 8bit
Followup-To: comp.lang.ada
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Organization: SAIC
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: jmattthews@nova.wright.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-04-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Given the following program

with Text_IO;

procedure Slice is

S : String (1 .. 64) := (others => '.');

    function F return String is
    begin
        return "result";
    end F;

begin

    Text_IO.Put_Line(S);
    S(S'Range) := F(S'Range);
    Text_IO.Put_Line(S);
    
end Slice;

The output is
................................................................
result

I was suprised to see that the indicated slice of F (F(S'Range)) is allowed
to be larger than the result returned by F, despite RM 4.1.2(7). For
smaller slices, the remainder of S seems to slide down, and the rest is
padded with nulls. Can someone help me understand this? Is this conformant
with the RM?

Thanks,

John
----
John B. Matthews, M.D.
matthewsj@saic.com; jmattthews@nova.wright.edu