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: 103376,1054df2e2c490eda
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Hannes Haug <Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de>
Subject: Re: Q: Memory management
Date: 1996/06/27
Message-ID: <uvvhgrx5tdb.fsf@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 162357315
sender: haugha@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de
references: <JSA.96Jun26142033@organon.com>
organization: Uni Tuebingen
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>>>>> "Robert" == Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> writes:

    Robert> In article
    Robert> <uvvybl91xtl.fsf@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de>, Hannes
    Robert> Haug <Hannes.Haug@Student.Uni-Tuebingen.de> wrote:
    >> I think I didn't understand the concept uf unconstrained
    >> arrays. There are no constrained arrays. All arrays are
    >> constrained.

    Robert> All array *objects* are constrained.

That's what I meant.

    >> ... So there is no need to store bounds somewhere in the
    >> array's storage. But there are pointers that can point to
    >> arbitrary constrained arrays. But Pointer.all is still
    >> constrained. That the bounds are not known at compile time is
    >> not the fault of Pointer.all but of Pointer. So the storage for
    >> the bounds belongs to Pointer and not to Pointer.all. So
    >> Pointer.all'Address should be the address of the elements of
    >> the array. Is this view (at least logically) correct ?

    Robert> Well, sort of, but not really.  You're mixing
    Robert> implementation issues and semantic issues.

That's what I meant by "at least logically" ;-)

    Robert> [...]

 -hannes