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!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!reality.xs3.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: I am not understanding user defined exceptions
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 14:39:51 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <o7ik2o$3q7$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: 
 <6cb6e781-c6df-4962-99e3-760e7c7fab88@googlegroups.com><k3ba9chta4hqdcv4q6npmrdbffsnfeoi8l@4ax.com><o73tvs$je$1@dont-email.me>
 <lyshntg9yh.fsf@pushface.org><o7fm37$4ir$1@dont-email.me>
 <wcc4m04jj3c.fsf@TheWorld.com><lyo9ybg678.fsf@pushface.org>
 <wcck28zfa69.fsf@TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: franka.jacob-sparre.dk 1486672792 3911 24.196.82.226 (9 Feb 2017
 20:39:52 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 20:39:52 +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 V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33300
Date: 2017-02-09T14:39:51-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"Robert A Duff" <bobduff@TheWorld.com> wrote in message 
news:wcck28zfa69.fsf@TheWorld.com...
> Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org> writes:
>
>> Good, but I have to admit the strength of Randy's point re:
>> maintainability.
>
> I don't share Randy's concerns about maintainability.
>
>>...Would it be possible for GNAT have a diagnostic option
>> to state whether explicit Static_Predicate would be OK?
>
> Sure, but I'm not likely to implement any such thing,
> given my opinion expressed above.  I recommend you use
> "Predicate =>" unless you want to be portable to non-GNAT
> compilers (or request the other compilers to mimic GNAT).
>
> To convince me otherwise, you'll have to explain why we don't say:
>
>    X: static constant Integer := 100;
>    static subtype S is Integer range 1..100;
>
>>...(you could tell
>> me to just try Static_Predicate first!)
>
> Sure, you can do that if you like.  To me, "Static_" is just noise
> (or necessary for portability).  This kind of inconsistency is
> a flaw in the design of Ada.
>
> - Bob