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!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Bug in Ada - Latin 1 is not a subset of UTF-8
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 20:53:16 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <nuegp9$lpv$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <86f0d2fe-d498-4bc4-bb9d-e34629c89bb4@googlegroups.com>
 <nu3mkc$agg$1@dont-email.me> <nu4jnj$11va$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <nu4m5k$g7g$1@dont-email.me> <nu4nee$18le$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <nu938r$g7h$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <nu9s5v$18f0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: franka.jacob-sparre.dk 1477101162 22335 24.196.82.226 (22 Oct 2016
 01:52:42 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2016 01:52:42 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:32158
Date: 2016-10-21T20:53:16-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:nu9s5v$18f0$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 20/10/2016 02:31, Randy Brukardt wrote:
...
>> It's not 100% as good as a constraint (as modifications of individual
>> components won't be checked), but it almost always will do the job.
>
> Not nice. Is there a reason why, apart from premature optimization?

Sure, checking after every component change would require passing some sort 
of checker subprogram with every reference parameter (since the actual could 
be part of some object that needs predicate checking). That sort of overhead 
would be completely unacceptable, especially as it would rarely be used.

As such, we stuck with the model that the checks are made in the same places 
that whole object constraint checks are made (such as discriminant checks). 
For private types, there is no difference, but some failures might be 
detected late for types with visible components (like String).

                             Randy.