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: 103376,4f1d7f0bd7ae1b5c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-07 03:45:49 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Static expression question
Date: 7 May 2002 03:45:49 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205070245.1e70bd51@posting.google.com>
References: <3CD710A0.4743@earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1020768349 4059 127.0.0.1 (7 May 2002 10:45:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 7 May 2002 10:45:49 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23626
Date: 2002-05-07T10:45:49+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vincent Marciante <marciant_remove@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<3CD710A0.4743@earthlink.net>...
> Isn't the renaming of an enumeration literal as a function
> supposed to be considered to be a static expression?

My initial answer to this was no, but I agree that Vincent's exegesis
looks reasonable (leading to an answer of yes). This is certainly a
very delicate area of the language (what denotes what, and what is
static), and not one where I consider myself to be expert enough.
Hopefully we can get a reading here from Tuck, I will also ask
Gary Dismukes.