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: 103376,5d4ade2fd8fd67c6
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!r28g2000prb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Legit Warnings or not
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:54:35 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <25df2c14-349d-4ac1-8f02-01ab76df041a@r28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <531193e0-3305-4292-9ed8-0176226c1d00@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
 <j086nn$aau$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j08sp2$8qi$2@dont-email.me>
 <j09rks$c5u$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j0a5qa$lqg$2@dont-email.me>
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 1311285276 12615 127.0.0.1 (21 Jul 2011 21:54:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 21:54:36 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: r28g2000prb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; 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; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20284
Date: 2011-07-21T14:54:35-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jul 21, 2:30=A0pm, Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> Seems that this implies that either (a: unlikely) the variable-sized
> component MUST remain in place in the record (which makes resizing it all
> but impossible) or (b: would work) the record must contain an ACCESS to
> it (in which case the implementation silently does something other than
> the declaration says).

(b) is pretty much how this would be implemented.  With regard to your
comment "the implementation silently does something other than the
declaration says": the implication, that the declaration says one
thing and the implementation is contradicting what the declaration
says and doing something different, isn't warranted.  If there are no
representation items, then a declaration says *nothing* about how a
type is represented.  If this means hidden pointers (which aren't
really ACCESS objects since the pointers aren't Ada and don't have to
follow Ada semantics), there's nothing wrong with that (and there are
places in the AARM that envision the possibility of hidden pointers).
If you read the declaration and conclude that there can't be any
pointers because the declaration doesn't have any access objects in
it, the problem is with your assumptions, not with the implementation.

                               -- Adam