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!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Community Input for the Maintenance and Revision of the Ada
 Programming Language
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 17:25:49 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <oon89e$aac$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <oludae$seh$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <4dc188de-802b-41ad-9cdd-b8246eb9a1c7@googlegroups.com>
 <47cc6474-8b75-4644-92d0-bd1f694c20e7@googlegroups.com>
 <338b355a-dee4-4c73-b00e-09d9a8430fb1@googlegroups.com>
 <oofm8f$ull$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk> <ooglev$c4u$1@dont-email.me>
 <oogubm$1ijg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Injection-Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 22:25:50 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="10572"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
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 V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:47938
Date: 2017-09-05T17:25:49-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:oogubm$1ijg$1@gioia.aioe.org...
> On 2017-09-03 12:32, Alejandro R. Mosteo wrote:
>
>> And is there a difference to using rename?:
>
> Yes, because renaming does not touch bounds even if explicitly required by 
> the subtype.

This was a bug in the Ada 83 design. It came about because Jean Ichbiah did 
not want to define "static matching" for subtypes, so instead the subtype is 
simply ignored. That turned out to be silly; Ada 95 defines "static 
matching".

Had static matching existed in Ada 83, a renames (object or subprogram) 
would have required the constraint(s), if any, to statically match. That 
would have eliminated the weird cases.

                               Randy.