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: 103376,7d502cbc6396bf1f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Universal Integer in TO_ADDRESS call
Date: 1999/06/06
Message-ID: <m3vhd1xqo6.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 486341977
References: <375004b1@news.compd.com>
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 06 Jun 1999 08:57:11 PDT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-06-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"David Akister" <dakister@compd.com> writes:

> I am trying to do a TO_ADDRESS type conversion while using XDADA. The two
> parameter types supported by the compiler are {universal integer} and
> ADDRESS_INT.
> 
> ADDRESS_INT is too short to be used and universal integer relies on  the
> parameter being a named-number.
> 
> The existing code uses named numbers as constants without types in the
> declaration. They of course adopt the universal integer and everything is
> fine.
> 
> I need to modify the code and add offsets taken from an array to this value
> and the compiler doesn't like it because the parameter is no longer of type
> universal-integer. The way I understand it is that universal integer applies
> to named-numbers only. Is it possible to declare any array of constants
> which will adopt the universal integer type ? Or can anyone help with an
> alternative ?
> 
> Any help much appreciated


One trick I use from time to time is T'Pos, which turns a specific
integer type into universal int.  I don't know if it will help you here,
though.