Re: "unconstrained subtype in component declaration" vs "discriminant in constraint must appear alone"

[Mehdi Saada <00120260a@gmail.com>]

Okay, point by point.
type Cards_number is range 0..52;
sorry lingering French

> type CARDS is new cards_numbers range 1..52;
> when 1 => put("Spades");
> when 2 => put("Hearts");
> when 3 => put("diamonds");
> when 4 => put("clubs");
> end case;

I didn't know half the terms in English. Nor that it was called a "suit"... I read novels but simple terms like this, nope..

> type Cards_Numbers'Base is range /implementation_defined/;
> type Cards'Base is new Cards_Numbers'Base;
I didn't get the meaning of 'Base before. ok.

> Note also that 52 / 13 + 1 = 5.
> If you write what you mean, you would have
Yes... I prefered being looking in the mirror and seeing a smartass with a math expression, to get myself ridiculous here, writing it wrong.
Ignoring this, could the compiler see that the expression has a limited number of possible results ? or a side tool ?

Never make it complicated and mathematics when it can be static and plain. Ok.
Morale: I have trouble not choosing names in a sorely confusing ðæµning way, even with care, đ↓¢ĸ, ßħ→ŧ !

> Yeah, here you're straight-up trying to overwrite the discriminant.
But I'm assigning a record aggregate to a mutable type object (so with a default disciminant).
So why does it matter if the component's subtype is constrained (here by the discriminant, but whatever) ?
It's the very point of mutable objects, to cope with these assignments... or What am I missing ?
That's the last issue remaining.