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,e3c7ee8cd1d3f414
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: aaro@iki.fi (Aaro Koskinen)
Subject: Re: rep clause in generics
Date: 1997/03/20
Message-ID: <pdxrahbo0my.fsf@vesuri.Helsinki.FI>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 226993939
Sender: akoskine@vesuri.Helsinki.FI
References: <01bc3057$61a78db0$81946482@vkpc131> <3329512E.4900@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Organization: L16
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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