From: aaro@iki.fi (Aaro Koskinen)
Subject: Re: rep clause in generics
Date: 1997/03/20
Date: 1997-03-20T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <pdxrahbo0my.fsf@vesuri.Helsinki.FI> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3329512E.4900@gsfc.nasa.gov
dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote in comp.lang.ada:
> There are lots of examples of values that are known at compile time
> but are not static expressions. The rules on static expressions are
> in RM 4.9. An expression is static iff the rules in 4.9 say it is
> static. period.
Is a function that is actually an enumeration literal (i.e. renamed)
one of these examples? I did check RM, but still wouldn't agree with
GNAT on this one (which says it's non-static). Apparently I have
missed something...
--
aaro@iki.fi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1997-03-20 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1997-03-14 0:00 rep clause in generics Jonas Nygren
1997-03-14 0:00 ` Stephen Leake
1997-03-15 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-03-20 0:00 ` Aaro Koskinen [this message]
1997-03-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1997-03-20 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1997-03-14 0:00 ` Robert A Duff
1997-03-15 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox