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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!ucbcad!ucbvax!TL-20B.ARPA!Evans
From: Evans@TL-20B.ARPA ("Art Evans")
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: static array types
Message-ID: <8706262216.AA21706@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Fri, 26-Jun-87 13:37:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8706262216.AA21706
Posted: Fri Jun 26 13:37:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 27-Jun-87 12:36:49 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: world
Organization: The ARPA Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ada never permits an array type to be static.  This fact follows from
the third sentence of 4.9(11).

I see no reason why a type such as
	type T is array(1..2) of integer;
should not be considered static.  In particular, I find it reasonable
that an array type be considered static if both of the following
requirements are met:
	All indices must be static ranges; and
	the array element type must be static.
(A similar rule can be developed for record types.)  If such a type is
static, it should then follow that 'size of such a type (or an object of
such a type) should be static.

This problem bit us when we tried to use the size of an array in a rep
spec, where a static value is required.

Art Evans
Tartan Labs
-------