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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5d4ade2fd8fd67c6
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Legit Warnings or not
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:16:16 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <j0bilg$mr4$2@dont-email.me>
References: 
 <531193e0-3305-4292-9ed8-0176226c1d00@x12g2000yql.googlegroups.com>
	<j086nn$aau$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j08sp2$8qi$2@dont-email.me>
	<j09rks$c5u$1@tornado.tornevall.net> <j0a5qa$lqg$2@dont-email.me>
	<25df2c14-349d-4ac1-8f02-01ab76df041a@r28g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 10:16:16 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="gFx9jrRjnahT/HPymsHv5Q";
	logging-data="23396"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uvPS6GwCafqPee8AbELQ9DjxmQuPIvL8="
User-Agent: Pan/0.134 (Wait for Me; GIT cb32159 master)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hxacqrr4iAPddH16ucXCQ/PeFxc=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20296
Date: 2011-07-22T10:16:16+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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