From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Protected Types and Address Clauses
Date: 1996/02/21
Date: 1996-02-21T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.824905563@schonberg> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4gcppr$10f5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com
"BG> protected Discretes is
BG> procedure Write(Settings : in SETTING_LIST);
BG> private
BG> HW_Control : DISCRETE_HW_CONTROL;
BG> for HW_Control use at 16#4000_0001#;
BG> end Discretes;
BG>
BG> Our compiler complains about the address clause, claiming that
BG> HW_Control is not visible. Looking at the language specification
BG> I do see that address clauses are not included here. What is
BG> the rationale for this omission?"
It is obvious that this address clause should not be allowed, since it is
plainly meaningless (address clauses cannot apply to components in a
meaningful way). I don't think the RM permits it, but if it does, then
the RM is plainly wrong.
If you declare a single protected object, it is fine to have an address
clause for the object, but not for its individual components.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-02-21 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <4fqe6h$t0e@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
1996-02-19 0:00 ` Protected Types and Address Clauses Robert I. Eachus
1996-02-20 0:00 ` Norman H. Cohen
1996-02-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1996-02-22 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-02-22 0:00 ` Mark A Biggar
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1996-02-21 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-02-21 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
[not found] <DMrJAC.788@thomsoft.com>
1996-02-21 0:00 ` Bob Gilbert
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox