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,e8c8d1c63ffacf0d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Constraint checking of actuals passed to Attributes
Date: 2000/05/05
Message-ID: <yeczoq5jvvs.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 619481951
Sender: kst@king.cts.com
References: <391250A8.99D1585C@hotmail.com>
X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 957511895 47723 205.163.0.22 (5 May 2000 07:31:35 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com
Date: 2000-05-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matt Brennan <zschub@hotmail.com> writes:
> Is an implementation required to generate code to check that an actual
> parameter passed to an attribute (for example, 'Image of a scalar type)
> is subtype conformant with the formal parameter? 

Yes, but the formal parameter may not be what you expect it to be.

In the specific case of 'Image, 3.5(35..36) says:

    S'Image denotes a function with the following specification: 

           function S'Image(Arg : S'Base)
             return String

So, for example, Natural'Image(-1) is the same as Integer'Image(-1),
and will not raise Constraint_Error.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.