From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Preelaborable address clause?
Date: 1999/02/14
Date: 1999-02-14T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7a5arg$cmk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 7a3qmo$e66$4@plug.news.pipex.net
In article <7a3qmo$e66$4@plug.news.pipex.net>,
"Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> I would suggest (to Rod) that if your compiler does have
> a private System.Address type (and does not support any
> other means of supplying a static address to an address
> representation clause), you try another compiler.
Note that the RM specifically recommends (for very good
reasons!) that Address be a private type, so if your
compiler does NOT make it a private type, then it is not
following this advice.
As for a method of supplying a static address, there is
obviously no way of doing this within the language. It may
well be useful to add an implementation dependent attribute
to achieve this effect, but of course use of such an
attribute would most certainly be non-portable (To_Address
is much more portable than Nick implies, it is likely that
on a given architecture it has a predictable portable
effect).
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-14 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-10 0:00 Preelaborable address clause? Rod Chapman
1999-02-10 0:00 ` Niklas Holsti
1999-02-12 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-14 0:00 ` robert_dewar [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox