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: 2002-04-19 07:06:08 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: 19 Apr 2002 07:06:07 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204190606.4855f886@posting.google.com> References: <665e587a.0203060957.3682edf7@posting.google.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> <5ee5b646.0204141201.1ffab2d8@posting.google.com> <3CBAEE01.D17C2DB0@despammed.com> <5ee5b646.0204161911.687f3144@posting.google.com> <3CBDBE76.F4FF3905@despammed.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1019225168 24877 127.0.0.1 (19 Apr 2002 14:06:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 19 Apr 2002 14:06:08 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22782 Date: 2002-04-19T14:06:08+00:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote in message news:<3CBDBE76.F4FF3905@despammed.com>... > You would find it surprising if there were a statement > in error in the RM? Weren't most of the statements in > the RM written by humans? I would be more than surprised, I would be astounded. It is not an error that anyone would make who knew what was going on, and it is an error that would be so obvious as to be immediately caught (in particular, I looked very carefully at everything that was said about Size). Furthermore, checking every reference to Size in the RM yields nothing remotely like your memory. So here's the bottom line: Robert, who helped write and review this manual is quite certain there is no statement about this (furthermore Robert has never been confused as to the meaning of static). Furthermore if there were any such statement, it would be clearly and obviously wrong to anyone understanding the meaning of static expression. Wes insists on his memory, but cannot and/or will not provide any evidence. Furthermore, he admits that he was seriously confused about the meaning of static (my best guess is that Wes saw something about the value of Size being dynamic, and since at that time he thought that static was the opposite of dynamic (it is not) he probably got confused :-)