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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,211b7e860ed3ea2d
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-02-11 05:57:42 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Problem with Address Clauses
Date: 11 Feb 1995 08:57:42 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3hifon$bcl@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <3hdlsr$a8a@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-02-11T08:57:42-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Requiring static expressions in address clauses is probably an allowable
restriction given that rep clauses are somewhat impl dependent anyway,
but it is *certainly* an extremely unfriendly restriction. So you may
not be able to sue, but you could switch!