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,e08ffaff681705c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: access aliased obstacle Date: 1996/07/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167558288 references: <4rsmn6$hvc@news1.delphi.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Laurent said " The idea is that there are stored somewhere, "in the record" is an unfortunate wording ;-). BTW, is there any compiler that use the alternative you proposed ? How to get the following right without storing "in the record"?" I don't think any compilers do this, but it is perfectly viable to treat discriminants like subscripts for arrays, which certainly need not be stored with the arrays (think of the fat pointer implemenation in GNAT for arrays, it could easily adapt to variant records, with separate pointers to the discriminants and data). When we were designing the info systems annex, we considered using a variant record design for decimal numbers with the precision being a diiscriminant, but that is only viable if you do this separate allocation, and we did not feel that would be easy for compilers to do!