Re: Processing array subsections, a newbie question.

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Sun, 13 Jun 2010 18:57:14 +0200, Phil Thornley  
<phil.jpthornley@gmail.com> a écrit:
> In the situation you
> describe I would define a type (to replace your use of Natural) that
> has one extra value at the end
I see what you mean, but ...
Personal feeling: this looks like a trick, would not recommend it. To be  
short: types should not defined this way. Implementation should be  
adjusted to specification (a type is a part of a specification) and not  
the opposite, that is, to adapt specifications (types here) to an  
implementation.

-- 
There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.