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: 2002-04-17 11:27:27 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cambridge1-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!bos-service1.ext.raytheon.com!bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3CBDBE76.F4FF3905@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> <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> <3CBAEE01.D17C2DB0@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204161911.687f3144@posting.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 13:27:02 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.168.144.162 X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 1019068047 151.168.144.162 (Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:27:27 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 14:27:27 EDT Organization: Raytheon Company Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22670 Date: 2002-04-17T13:27:02-05:00 List-Id: > > 'Size DOES return a scalar. Therefore, if the prefix > > is static and non-scalar, 4.9 (7) says 'Size on it is > > static. > > No, that's not what 4.9(7) says (let's have it again): You're right. Typo. Let me try again: > > 'Size DOES return a scalar. Therefore, if the prefix > > is static and scalar, 4.9 (7) says 'Size on it is > > static. > Whether you have time or not is irrelevant, there is no > such proof, so you will just be wasting your time looking > for it. The principles behind this design are quite clear I won't be wasting my time because I am confident I saw what I saw. Of course, I could be wrong (see below) but I don't think so. However, proving it (or trying to) is not worth the trouble. If I find it, we have an inconsistency and we fix the RM. If I'm don't find it, I still haven't proven it doesn't exist. Neither option has any effect on what a compiler will or won't accept. > clarifying here. What would be MOST surprising is if > there *were* a statement corresponding to your memory, > since it is obviously evident that such a statement would > be in error, given the fundamental design criteria for You would find it surprising if there were a statement in error in the RM? Weren't most of the statements in the RM written by humans? Isn't one of the reasons for Ada the fact that humans commit errors? -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau