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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d939a7e1280607b,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Corey Minyard Subject: Representation clause in records? Date: 1999/02/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 441149013 Sender: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com Organization: Wonderforce Research Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In section 3.8 of the RM we see: (1) A record object is a composite object consisting of named components. The value of a record object is a composite value consisting of the values of the components. Syntax (2) record_type_definition ::= [[abstract] tagged] [limited] record_definition (3) record_definition ::= record component_list end record | null record (4) component_list ::= component_item {component_item} | {component_item} variant_part | null; (5) component_item ::= component_declaration | representation_clause (6) component_declaration ::= defining_identifier_list : component_definition [:= default_expression]; I am playing around with ASIS and I was to the point of handling the representation clause here. My question is: What is the representation clause specified in (5)? I have it from a reliable source that the following is not legal: package Test1 is type T1 is record A : Integer; for A'Size use 32; end record; end Test1; So what is the RM saying here? ASIS seems to allow something of this affect, but I didn't find any text in the RM section that talked about this construct. -- Corey Minyard Internet: minyard@acm.org Work: minyard@nortelnetworks.com UUCP: minyard@wf-rch.cirr.com