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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7f9c4ba3b0dc13ca
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-12-16 21:16:25 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Addressing functions
Date: 16 Dec 1994 11:56:47 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3csgsf$nhk@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <3citrc$bb5@earth.usa.net>
 <EACHUS.94Dec13101448@spectre.mitre.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-12-16T11:56:47-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Eachus points out the same possible solution (using an address
clause) that I did, but he is too optimistic about its chance of success.

The effect of this sequence of code, or even its legality, cannot be
determined from the RM. It works on some compilers but not on others.
That you expect it might work is based on knowledge of implementation
models. There are many legitimate reasons for a compiler to reject the
program as illegal, and also many legitimate reasons for a compiler
to accept the program and then do the wrong thing.

At ome point CIFO included a requirement that this approach work, but 
CIFO is not a standard, and so you can't count on this.

Ada/95 solves this problem directly!