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 Subject: Re: Q: Memory management Date: 1996/06/27 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 162331109 sender: haugha@chaq.informatik.uni-tuebingen.de references: organization: Uni Tuebingen newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-06-27T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: I think I didn't understand the concept uf unconstrained arrays. There are no constrained arrays. All arrays are constrained. 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 ? -hannes