Re: Legit Warnings or not

[Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>]

On Thu, 21 Jul 2011 14:54:35 -0700, Adam Beneschan wrote:

> On Jul 21, 2:30 pm, Brian Drummond <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>> Seems that this implies that either (a: unlikely) the variable-sized
>> component MUST remain in place in the record (which makes resizing it
>> all but impossible) or (b: would work) the record must contain an
>> ACCESS to it (in which case the implementation silently does something
>> other than the declaration says).
> 
> (b) is pretty much how this would be implemented.  With regard to your
> comment "the implementation silently does something other than the
> declaration says":  the implication, [...] isn't warranted.  If there  
> are no representation items, then a declaration says *nothing* about 
> how a type is represented.

Thank you for the correction.
... the implementation silently does something other than I wrongly 
inferred from the declaration.
I can live with that!

I considered adding a comment that this would make representation clauses 
difficult, as you suggest. 

On the one hand, I would find it difficult to think of a practical use 
for a representation clause for this object ... on the other, unless 
aliasing this monster is specifically prohibited, there appears to be 
room for nasty corner cases. Is there such a rule?

- Brian