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: 115aec,f41f1f25333fa601 X-Google-Attributes: gid115aec,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,a3ca574fc2007430 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan) Subject: Re: Ada and Automotive Industry Date: 1996/11/16 Message-ID: <56jfcf$5lq@krusty.irvine.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 197241058 references: <1996Nov8.183051.21638@ole.cdac.com> organization: /z/news/newsctl/organization newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.realtime Date: 1996-11-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >With respect to the array notation, it is ALWAYS a bad idea to take >advantage of this. If for some reason you want type Integer say so: > > x : array (Integer range 1 .. 10) of .. > >This will immediately draw attention to the fact that you are introducing >the use of a potentially implementation dependent type into your code. Which is important in the above example, because you might later want to port the code to an implementation whose default Integer is too small to hold the value 10. :) I think the idea of always specifying Integer explicitly is valuable, but the example chosen is unfortunate. In the above case, the explicit use of Integer "draws attention" to something that is in this case irrelevant. Of course, if you're specifying integer types for all your array bounds, you should do it here too for consistency. But I hope that if I code the above statement, no one reading the code is going to pay much attention to the fact that I'm using an implementation-dependent integer type. -- Adam