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,a9926825c099a467,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: tmoran@bix.com
Subject: Re: record rep on tagged record question
Date: 1997/10/01
Message-ID: <60tq70$4p7@lotho.delphi.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 277071899
Organization: Delphi Internet Services <http://www.delphi.com/>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


>Why are you writing a representation clause for a tagged record anyway?
>Are you intending to do some I/O using this type?  Have you looked at the
  No, I'm doing an API call to the OS, which has definite ideas about
how the record should be structured.  And in the real world problem this
example came from, there are discriminants involved which preclude
simply putting everything into an intermediate record, then using that
as the sole new component in the extended record.
  This is intended as a 'confirming' record rep clause, since the
compiler in question *seems* to do the expected thing, but it would be
nice to be sure.  If 'Position could be used on a type, instead of just
an object, I could make a compile time constraint error test - but it
can't.  RM 13.5.1(21) certainly leads me to believe this rep clause
should be legal.