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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8e0e21432ac3eca6
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: *\\~record depth~//*
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <wccu2mmw06c.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 549455699
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <3826DFBF.52AC2680@interact.net.au>
 <Pine.LNX.4.10.9911151802000.11396-100000@lexis.di.fct.unl.pt>
 <383099e1_1@news1.prserv.net> <38312BD8.3D753AE1@interact.net.au>
 <80s28q$71j$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:

> Best idea always make the type of the subscript explicit in
> the declaration. Either declare the subscript type, or use
> 
>   array (... range x .. y) of ...

I don't mind saying "array(x..y) of..." if x and y determine the type in
the non-confusing way (eg, maybe they're enumeration literals).  But I
never say "array (1..10) of ..." because I think the fact that it
defaults to Integer is an ugly kludge in the language design.

- Bob