Re: System.Address'Size - not a static integer expression?

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <oleh@vlinux.voxelvision.no>]

dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <oleh@vlinux.voxelvision.no> wrote in message news:<7vlmbgks2a.fsf@vlinux.voxelvision.no>...
> > dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:
>  
> > Close, but no cigar :-)
> > I suggest you look up the keyword 'static' in the C standard.
> 
> What I was referring to is the use of static for a local variable in
> a function as in:
> 
>    int x () {
>       int y;
>       static int z;
>       ...
> 
> z will be allocated statically, just like an OWN variable in Algol-60.
> This is certainly a useful capability in some form (and indeed we often
> see as an FAQ in CLA "is there an equivalent of static in Ada" [canonical
> answer "yes, use package body variables" [this actually should be "no,
> but you can use PB variables to get more or less the same effect -- the
> Ada approach lacks the semantics of the Algol-60 OWN or the C static in
> that the variable in question has a reach that is greater than the function,
> whereas in C/A60, the variable has a scope that is greater, but the reach
> is restricted.
> 
> I use scope here to talk about the lifetime of the variable, and reach to
> refer to the places where it can be referenced.
> 
> Yes, I know that the keyword static in C has other uses by extension, which
> indeed may be what Wes found confusing, but the above is the fundamental
> motivation for the choice of the keyword static in my view.

Yes, certainly this must have been the original meaning. How they came
to re-use the keyword for 'not externally visible' I don't know.