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: 103376,39f3c359196fe8b4
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-20 08:17:22 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!sccrnsc04.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Steve" <nospam_steved94@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <b7u1jh$p6k$1@news.onet.pl>
Subject: Re: for x'address or variant
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <4Syoa.543627$F1.76041@sccrnsc04>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.211.13.75
X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com
X-Trace: sccrnsc04 1050851840 12.211.13.75 (Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:17:20 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:17:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T Broadband
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 15:17:20 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:36318
Date: 2003-04-20T15:17:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

First:  If you're a newbie to Ada, you're taking the wrong approach.  If
that is the case, please elaborate a little more on the problem you're
trying to solve, maybe we can help with a different approach.

Second: If you're not a newbie and are showing a small subset of the problem
without the gory details, there is a pragma defined for the intent of
interfacing with C called "Unchecked_Union" that would allow you to do this.
The pragma is not currently (as far as I know) supported by the standard,
but is available with Gnat and ObjectAda (maybe more).  The Win32Ada
bindings have an example of the use of this pragma.

Steve
(The Duck)

"kat-Zygfryd" <6667@wp.pl> wrote in message
news:b7u1jh$p6k$1@news.onet.pl...
> I have a tiny problem, I want to have a structure:
> type P is access X;
> type X is record
>     next: array(1..2) of P;
>     left: P;
>     right: P;
> end record;
> wherein the left component uses next(1)'address
> and right component uses next(2)'address,
> unfortunately "for x'address use" statements are
> not allowed within record declarations, and
> variant records don't allow me to access both
> next and left/right exchangably. do you know a way
> to work this out?
>
> Zygfryd @gnat3.15
>
>