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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,651635aa2f402e26
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:44:04 -0500
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
References: <44942492$0$11080$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
Subject: Re: null records and box
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 18:44:51 -0500
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1807
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1807
Message-ID: <Wv6dnfBs7-1ZqwrZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38
X-Trace: 
 sv3-citANQZyKFGvmpEKZR3ipRv+jxXa8XrtxYVRb8xgWF5Ktmjgh61FsC9IfTzs3WLEepSmfdwlqQkJ/v6!GwrwRkp98vD0gnnpohI2RkFI2Xlzqv3LNaS6pwvp0+ADZG+UhGCRX+nnDi0HIz5fVuIzB889UAB+!NIIH80sLocmz5Q==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint
 properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:4842
Date: 2006-06-19T18:44:51-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Georg Bauhaus" <bauhaus@futureapps.de> wrote in message
news:44942492$0$11080$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net...
> John Barnes writes about a null record type, "The aggregate
> for the (null) value ... can be written as (null record)
> or even as (others => <>)." (Barnes 2006, p.146)
>
> Is the latter part is now rubbed out by LRM 4.3.1(15),
> so that (null record) is the one way to express a null
> record aggregate?
>
> (GNAT would be right, then.)

That looks like a bug in Ada 2005. It certainly was my intent that you could
write "(others => <>)" for a null record (I rewrote this text for a number
of reasons in the later stages of the Amendment work; I don't ever recall
thinking that 4.3.1(15) prevented that). I think the "null record" syntax is
a mistake, in that it doesn't look like the syntax you would expect for an
aggregate.

Anyway, I'll check with the ARG (just because it was *my* intent -- and one
tht John also expected -- doesn't mean that it was really intended).

                                 Randy.