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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!sun-barr!newstop!sun!brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM!grover
From: grover@brahmand.Eng.Sun.COM (Vinod Grover)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: question re semantics of Ada length clause
Message-ID: <140198@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 5 Aug 90 20:44:36 GMT
References: <9008042114.AA11484@boardwalk.mitre.org.mitre.org>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9008042114.AA11484@boardwalk.mitre.org.mitre.org> howell@BOARDWALK.MITRE.ORG (Chuck Howell) writes:
>check that what I've requested is potentially realizable?  In other
>words, if I compile 
>    for Some_Access_Type'Storage_Size use 1;
>where 1 is not enough for even one allocation, should I get a warning
>that Storage_Error will be raised? 
Even more interesting is the following:

    for access_type'storage_size use 0;

This is useful in cases where one is doing low-level programming and has
created an access type as an alternative view of another type, say
system'address. In this case one is never going to allocate any objects from
the collection for the access type, and would like not to reseverve storage
for the collection.