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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,56452c8eb57ca531
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2000-09-06 12:37:24 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-east!supernews.com!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!freenix!oleane.net!oleane!bignews.mediaways.net!newsfeed.germany.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!do.de.uu.net!nr-do2.de.uu.net!personalnews.de.uu.net!not-for-mail
From: andrew@knuut.de (Andrew Lynch)
Subject: Re: Problem porting VADS to GNAT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <39b23ec7$0$29240@personalnews.de.uu.net>
 <8ovhhh$bsfe6$2@ID-25716.news.cis.dfn.de>
Organization: Blob
Reply-To: andrew.lynch@knuut.de
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Date: 06 Sep 2000 19:36:58 GMT
Message-ID: <39b69cda$0$65@personalnews.de.uu.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 149.225.111.181
X-Trace: personalnews.de.uu.net 968269018 65 149.225.111.181
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:529
Date: 2000-09-06T19:36:58+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.