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,b1208117d36fb121 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-14 12:59:32 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression? Date: 14 Apr 2002 12:59:32 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204141159.51dc252d@posting.google.com> References: <665e587a.0203060957.3682edf7@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0203061721.36d42541@posting.google.com> <3C877185.1CF93423@despammed.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> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018814372 11411 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2002 19:59:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Apr 2002 19:59:32 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22527 Date: 2002-04-14T19:59:32+00:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote in message news:<3CB74D37.973A4C19@despammed.com>... > In the Ada RM it doesn't. But to a lot of people > (and formerly, to me) that's what it meant. Only very casually, because, as I noted before "known at compile time" is obviously a recursively undecidable predicate, and if you think for a moment, you know that no language feature could be based on a RU predicate. > It wasn't in 4.9 For me to prove I'm right, I'd have to > find it again, which would be hard. For you to prove I'm > wrong, you'd have to make me read every paragraph in the > RM and agree it isn't in there, which would be even > harder. So I think we should drop it. Not with you leaving FUD on this issue. I know the RM well in this area, and can assure you that you did not find what you remember. Given your confusion on the meaning of static I would say that you should hesitate to trust your memory here. Once again, it is of COURSE the case that 'Size is sometimes static, and sometimes non-static. There is no statement in the RM that contradicts this, and if there were such a statement, it would be an obvious (and very visible mistake), so the fact that no one has pointed out such a mistake in the ongoing review process should really help to convince you that your memory is faulty here. > > > So you are saying that it IS in this subset > > > if the prefix is a static scalar subtype? > > > > Yes :-) several times > > If that's true, both GNAT and Apex were wrong to reject > the code I was speaking of. And I severely > misinterpreted the RM passage that seemed to justify the > rejection. No, the type in question was not a static scalar subtype! If you still don't understand this, reread the definition in 4.9.