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: 103376,6a3ccb375568d2f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Preelaborable address clause? Date: 1999/02/14 Message-ID: <7a5arg$cmk$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 444132915 References: <36C19FED.3628666A@praxis-cs.co.uk> <36C20210.4C8B494B@icon.fi> <7a3qmo$e66$4@plug.news.pipex.net> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x8.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Feb 14 02:02:29 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I) Date: 1999-02-14T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <7a3qmo$e66$4@plug.news.pipex.net>, "Nick Roberts" 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