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: 103376,5ccd8ee851fe2e00,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mcriley@BIX.com (mcriley on BIX)
Subject: Record aggregate question (language lawyer needed!)
Date: 1996/06/21
Message-ID: <mcriley.835361851@BIX.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 161378416
organization: Delphi Internet Services Corporation
keywords: record aggregate bug
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
summary: Is this record aggregate legal?
Date: 1996-06-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



The following test program is accepted without question by one Ada
compiler and executes without any qualms, while another warns of
a constraint_error at runtime.  Which is correct, or, is the exact
implementation left up to the compiler implementor?

procedure Rec_Test is

   type Task_Record_Type is
	record
	    Originator : String (1 .. 20);
	    Header_Dtg : String (1 .. 12);
	end record;
	
    Task_Record : Task_Record_Type := (others => (others => ' '));

begin
  null;
end rec_test;

The relevant part of the LRM is 4.3.1[1]: "A component association
with the choice others [...] is only allowed if the represented
components are all of the same type."  Well the components are
both of the same _type_, but obviously the subtype constraints vary.
The nature of the warning produced by the one compiler reflects
that: "Subtype_Match_Error".

Any input on this would be most appreciated.

Marc A. Criley