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!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.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: ADA.STRINGS.INDEX_ERROR : a-strunb.adb:782
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 19:21:35 -0600
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <p3rh70$9o5$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <d66b4a89-dc02-4c04-a5bf-6dd4f2ef9f86@googlegroups.com>
 <7e895632-e0f9-4035-a0a3-1a31a262c8b3@googlegroups.com>
 <p3ntmv$16u6$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <6e4679ff-6058-40ec-821a-791507313906@googlegroups.com>
 <p3pm77$1jvi$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <59f84cc1-3d46-43be-9f0a-618569caf5ee@googlegroups.com>
 <2c7bd6af-5eb8-415b-8808-e8d85c0c4d99@googlegroups.com>
 <7a87c81e-3740-4cad-9cad-e4c627304ea9@googlegroups.com>
 <p3qjq9$17pg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
 <b899a060-6c72-4771-b204-8470ebe6205c@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 01:21:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="9989"; 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; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:49991
Date: 2018-01-18T19:21:35-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Mehdi Saada" <00120260a@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:b899a060-6c72-4771-b204-8470ebe6205c@googlegroups.com...
...
>I wonder what already existing code PRECISELY would be broken, if the NEW
>norm (202x) would allow that construct. Since it was NOT present in older
>programs, how it being used in NEW ONES, could be a prolem ? Or gives
>a real world exemple, so I can get your point, AdaMagica.

It wouldn't break any code, it just doesn't make sense to rename a value or 
object as a function. These are different kinds of entities! You can't say:

     function Foobar return Integer renames Some_Object;

either. It makes sense to rename it as an object, or to just use it to 
initialize a constant object.

                    Randy.