From: andrew@knuut.de (Andrew Lynch)
Subject: Re: Problem porting VADS to GNAT
Date: 06 Sep 2000 19:36:58 GMT
Date: 2000-09-06T19:36:58+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <39b69cda$0$65@personalnews.de.uu.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 8ovhhh$bsfe6$2@ID-25716.news.cis.dfn.de
Nick Roberts (nickroberts@callnetuk.com) wrote:
: My interpretation of the ARM 83 (13.1) is that the VADS compiler (an Ada 83
: compiler) is entitled to allow the representation clauses where they are
: (but another Ada 83 compiler would be within its rights to reject them).
Ok, thanks for the info. I've now had the time for a closer look at the '83 RM
and 13.1(6) makes me wonder if VADS is indeed entitled to do this:
"In the case of a type, certain occurences of its name imply that the
representation of the type must already have been determined. [...]
In any case, an occurrence within an expression is always forcing."
I think that the discriminant and its default expression would fit the above.
Or does the occurence of the _type_ only mean things such as Numbers'First?
Either way this code is not exactly portable, which is one of the reasons
we are still farting around with VADS. :-(
Andrew.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-09-06 19:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-09-03 12:06 Problem porting VADS to GNAT Andrew Lynch
[not found] ` <8ovhhh$bsfe6$2@ID-25716.news.cis.dfn.de>
2000-09-06 19:36 ` Andrew Lynch [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox