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_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,caabf5265fad78e5
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: unsigned type
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:08:26 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <f6a3b1dc-2af1-4568-9615-5884a68b509b@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References: <MJS1m.405325$4m1.207186@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<h2919r$8ua$1@aioe.org>
 <Yw_1m.93774$d36.55288@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<t43a2h.upd.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
 <vl92m.407874$4m1.156974@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1246316907 15300 127.0.0.1 (29 Jun 2009 23:08:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:08:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
	posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
	SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
	3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6743
Date: 2009-06-29T16:08:26-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jun 29, 1:19=A0pm, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Wrong re-read RM 3.5 (8) An Empty string may be a "Null r=
ange" string
> but zero ( 0 ) is not within the subtype of the Positive type. The second
> sentence of RM 3.5 ( 8 ) forces the index to be valid for all references
> including a null range statement.

Excuse me?  The first sentence of 3.5(8) tells you when a "range is
compatible".  (And it says that a null range is compatible even if its
bounds don't belong to the subtype.)  The second sentence says "A
range_constraint is compatible... if and only if its range is
compatible...".  Thus the second sentence refers to the definition
given in the first sentence, so how can the second sentence impose a
requirement that the first sentence doesn't???

                          -- Adam