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!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!2.us.feeder.erje.net!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: I am not understanding user defined exceptions
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 14:15:10 -0500
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcck28zfa69.fsf@TheWorld.com>
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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell02.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1486667710 30665 192.74.137.72 (9 Feb 2017 19:15:10
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 19:15:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:ppEjufQJor/DWcJGH76YZIVGEU8=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:33299
Date: 2017-02-09T14:15:10-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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