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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,efe03f20164a417b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: An observation of Ada (may offend)
Date: 1995/04/04
Message-ID: <3ls5jp$nj8@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100815582
references: <3l640c$308@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
 <3l6sts$12kj@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Norm writes:

this [record representation clauses being optional] is no longer the case

that's misleading, record representation clauses were always required in
Ada 83. It is true that for a long time the ACVC suite did not enforce
this, but the standard required them. It permitted their omission only
for cases where there was no simple mapping to the macihine, since this
was never true for simple record rep clauses, this did not apply, and
they were 100% required.

In a sense, Ada 95 relaxes this, since the core does not require that
they be implemented.