Re: Question about record rep spec placement

[Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lmtas.lmco.com>]

Norman H. Cohen wrote:
> 
> Ken Garlington wrote:
> >
> > 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?

[snip]

> 
> There are a few cases where the freezing rules make a legal Ada-83
> program into an illegal Ada-95 program, but these cases are obscure and
> pathological.  For example, because of poor wording in the Ada-83
> definition of "forcing occurrence",
> 
>    subtype S is Integer range 0 .. Some_Record'Size;
> 
> was not a forcing occurrence in Ada 83, but this declaration does freeze
> the representation of Some_Record in Ada 95.

We will check to see if this is the case. Is there a complete list of
cases
related to freezing occurences that are different between Ada83 and Ada?

> 
> --
> Norman H. Cohen
> mailto:ncohen@watson.ibm.com
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/n/ncohen

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