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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,db88d0444fafe8eb
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Surprise in array concatenation
Date: 06 Sep 2005 17:00:15 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccpsrlc3og.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <1125610942.747981.280770@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
 <Qf2dnUIZUaeLGoreRVn-2g@comcast.com>
 <1125935610.797293.40550@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <6W0Te.5718$4P5.4916@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <wcck6hvnpsm.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <O4jTe.3$64.2@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1126040415 10185 192.74.137.71 (6 Sep 2005 21:00:15
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2005 21:00:15 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4485
Date: 2005-09-06T17:00:15-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jeffrey Carter <spam@spam.com> writes:

> Robert A Duff wrote:
> > Heh?  The lower (and upper!) bound of all array types in Pascal is
> > fixed.  And it has to be fixed at a static value.  Every array object of
> > a given type has the same fixed bounds.
> 
> Poor word choice, I guess. I meant fixed by the language, as arrays in
> FORTRAN 66 have a lower bound fixed at 1, or arrays in C have a lower
> bound fixed at 0.
> 
> > It's true that the lower bound doesn't have to be 1, or any other
> > particular value, but it has to be static, and it is fixed for that
> > array type.
> 
> This is what I meant. Even in Ada, the lower bound of an array object is
> fixed at some value. But the lower bound is defined by the user, not by
> the language.

Ah, yes, I see.  Sorry for being unclear.  We need to be careful to say
"fixed for an object" vs. "fixed for a type" vs. "fixed for the whole
language" vs. various other possibilities.  ;-)

- Bob