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: 103376,99222a5bd46ef3c9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GOTO considered necessary (reworked)
Date: 1997/06/17
Message-ID: <dewar.866539615@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 249028469
References: <5nn2fm$11dk$1@prime.imagin.net> <EBpyKy.J3@world.std.com>
 <dewar.866304502@merv> <33A59E72.47FA@no.such.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-06-17T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Wes said

<<Similar sob-story: Rep-specs written to make data structures portable 
were rejected because "rep-specs are implementation-dependent.">>

rep specs cannot in general make code more portable. They can make data
structures better specified for interchange with the outside world, but
I don't quite understand what you mean by portable data structures. I
do understand what you mean by data structures (actually in this case
you *really* mean storage structures) more interchangable between different
Ada compilers, but that is quite a different matter.

Writing in Ada 95, you really should try to stick to the rep clauses (note
that the phrase rep specs is popular but has always been quite wrong in both
Ada 83 and Ada 95) that are guaranteed to work in Annex C.