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,e0507ace077eca70
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Address attribute
Date: 1997/11/05
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680000511970727050001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 287309619
References: <345FD3FB.74A32F4A@academic.truman.edu>
 <63p32j$fr2$1@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>
Organization: Estormza Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-11-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <63p32j$fr2$1@flood.weeg.uiowa.edu>, nospam@somewhere.ia.us
(Robert S. White) wrote:

>In article <345FD3FB.74A32F4A@academic.truman.edu>, v025@academic.truman.edu 
>says...
>>
>>Could anyone post an example where the address attribute is used to set
>>a varible to a specfic location in memory(a.k.a the text buffer).  The
>
>  Not quite an attribute.  Just use "use at".

In Ada 83, it is correct that one doesn't use the attribute form:

declare
   Text : Text_Buffer;
   for Text use at A;
begin

But this syntax is inconsistent with the rest of the language, for example

declare
   type T is delta 0.01 range 0.0 .. 100.0;
   for T'Small use 0.01;
begin

Why treat the syntax of address specification any different?  The syntax
was indeed changed in Ada 95, and the form above has been deprecated.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271