Re: unconstrained array clarification

[dewarr@my-dejanews.com]

In article <WishList-1909981042300001@a1.phoenix-7.goodnet.com>,
  WishList@2600.com (Technobabble) wrote:
> Greetings Tucker,
>
> Thanks for the excellent response to my problem.  Thanks also for being
> kind enough to see through my novice attempts at syntax and patient enough
> to really understand and attack this problem. I'm sorry for the late night
> off the cuff coding examples that introduced misleading errors and
> produced a frustrated audience, it's all my fault, sorry. Thanks for
> seeing through all of that !!!
>
> recall:
>
> >    xyz5_array : aliased xyz_array := (1..5 => 0);
> >
> > This requirement for subtype matching is a bit of a pain, but using 'Access
> > imposes some stringent requirements on matching of representation, and
> > for pointers to arrays, it can matter greatly whether the nominal
> > subtype is constrained or unconstrained (you'll have to trust me on
> > this one).
> >
> > : now I want to loop:
> >
> > : for I in This.XYZ(1)'RANGE
> > :      loop
> > :       ..........
> >
> >
> > : ???? Will this work ???  Is the syntax totally incorrect ???
> >
> > This can be made to work, with the above changes.
> >
> > It might be interesting to have some idea where you are headed
> > with all of this.  There might be a simpler overall solution.
> >
>
> What I want to do is to keep the addresses for several arrays of records
> of different lengths in an array of pointers. Then write the contents of
> each record to I/O.  The problem is to do this with only the array of
> pointers, if I don't want to keep track of the size of each array (number
> of records), and I want to use the RANGE attribute to determine the size.
> But the only way I have of getting to the array of records is via the
> pointer.  I didn't design this stuff either, it's adopted from legacy
> code. I'll re-code the stuff in GNAT with the changes you've supplied and
> see if I can get a good compile.
>
> Thanks,
> Richmond


Seems odd that this could be legacy code, since Ada 83 had no facilities
comparable to 'Access (at least not in reasonable coding styles).

>

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp   Create Your Own Free Member Forum