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: 103376,1c6d2cced6ff12bb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: record rep on tagged record question Date: 1997/09/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 275355451 References: <3428278b.18967041@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <3428278b.18967041@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>, tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) wrote: >Shouldn't this be legal Ada 95? One of the three compilers I tried >gives a "raised CONSTRAINT_ERROR" when I try to execute it. The >message apparently comes from the attempt to elaborate >"Picture:b.Child_Type", since neither the Ada.Text_IO in the main >program nor the one in its exception handler produces any result. >(The other two compilers both give "hi" results.) I've checked and >Tag'Size for this compiler is 32, so an offset of 4 bytes seems >appropriate. Why are you writing a representation clause for a tagged record anyway? Are you intending to do some I/O using this type? Have you looked at the stream I/O facility - it may do what you want without the rep clause (read: portability) headaches. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271