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_50,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site harvard.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!draves
From: draves@harvard.ARPA (Richard Draves)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: validation stringency
Message-ID: <453@harvard.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 10-Mar-85 03:03:59 EST
Article-I.D.: harvard.453
Posted: Sun Mar 10 03:03:59 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 12-Mar-85 20:20:04 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: Aiken Computation Laboratory, Harvard
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I recently came across a limitation on how complicated a type
declaration pcc will accept.  I don't remember any similar
nesting restrictions in the Ada standard.  Are Ada implementations
required to allow unlimited nesting?  Does the validation suite
make some sort of attempt to check this?

Rich
-- 

	"a picture in the head is a gory murder in an art gallery"

					-- Stephen Kosslyn