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,FREEMAIL_FROM, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b1208117d36fb121 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-08 11:43:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!jfk3-feed1.news.digex.net!intermedia!panix!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3C891463.C4C09795@despammed.com> From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: wesgroleau@despammed.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en,es-MX,es,pt,fr-CA,fr MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression? References: <665e587a.0203060957.3682edf7@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0203061721.36d42541@posting.google.com> <3C877185.1CF93423@despammed.com> <7f1fa3aa.0203081034.12a7bd11@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 14:43:31 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1015616631 151.168.144.162 (Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:43:51 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2002 13:43:51 CST Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20952 Date: 2002-03-08T14:43:31-05:00 List-Id: > I've wondered about this in the past, I can't remember any "official" > justification for this. Why does the RM say it's not static? It > requires static expression when defining it. Only unconstrained types > can have non-static 'Size. (Am I missing something?) Maybe it's a There's the justification: 'Size is sometimes non-static, and requiring a compiler to distinguish when imposes too much complexity. Allowing a compiler to distinguish when would lead to too much non-portability. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau