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: 2002-04-15 08:13:30 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!crtntx1-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: <3CBAEE01.D17C2DB0@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> <3C891463.C4C09795@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204072057.48d33742@posting.google.com> <3CB1B473.CF6E93AD@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204091754.5dcfd16d@posting.google.com> <3CB47947.466E0E81@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204121220.606ecc36@posting.google.com> <3CB74D37.973A4C19@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204141201.1ffab2d8@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:13:05 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: dfw-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1018883609 151.168.144.162 (Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:13:29 CDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 10:13:29 CDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22556 Date: 2002-04-15T10:13:05-05:00 List-Id: > > If that's true, both GNAT and Apex were wrong to reject > > the code I was speaking of. > > Just to clarify here: the type in question was a *RECORD* > type, surely you cannot think that *any* record type can > possibly qualify as a static *scalar* subtype :-) I do not recall ever posting that it was a record type. Just that it was rejected and that I found (or my faulty memory says I found) something saying 'Size was non-static. The same memory does not think it was a record type. 'Size DOES return a scalar. Therefore, if the prefix is static and non-scalar, 4.9 (7) says 'Size on it is static. That does not prove no other paragraph says otherwise. You say no, and you are a generally reliable source. I do not have the time to look for proof that my memory is not as faulty as you say. For now, I have no doubt or uncertainty, and certainly no fear. So perhaps FUD is the wrong term. In any case I still think we should it and _I_ am doing so. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau