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: 103376,e977cd3ab4e49fef,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com>
Subject: Question about record rep spec placement
Date: 1997/01/15
Message-ID: <32DCFDAA.2656@lmtas.lmco.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209988190
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (Win95; U)
Date: 1997-01-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


We have some Ada83 code that looks like the following:

package Some_Package is

  type Some_Record is record
   -- components here
  end record;

  -- some arbitrary declarations here

private

  for Some_Record use record
   -- component rep spec here
  end record;

end;

Are there cases in Ada where a record representation specification
cannot be deferred until the private part of the package? I'm told that
when this code was compiled with an Ada 95 compiler, that the record
rep spec had to be moved to immediately after the record declaration
for the code to compile correctly. I'm wondering if this is

  (a) illegal Ada83 code that our Ada83 compiler accepted anyway
      (much like the use of unchecked_conversion on the left-hand side
      of an assignment statement, as described in another thread),

  (b) legal Ada code that the other Ada compiler rejected anyway, or

  (c) OUCH! Ada83 code that is no longer valid Ada.

--
LMTAS - The Fighter Enterprise - "Our Brand Means Quality"
For job listings, other info: http://www.lmtas.com or
http://www.lmco.com