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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,73cb216d191f0fef
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.8.4 with SMTP id n4mr2641044wia.0.1363918479009;
        Thu, 21 Mar 2013 19:14:39 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 p18ni6019wiv.0!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.86.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!novia!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!panix!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is this expected behavior or not
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 16:49:58 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wcc7gl73w95.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <c988e09f-8532-4840-9749-b61aa39551b4@googlegroups.com>
 <mtz6eyrgv524.r2yf3jw9vid3$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <wccmwu8r0xh.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <8klywqh2pf$.1f949flc1xeia.dlg@40tude.net>
 <513f6e2f$0$6572$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <b3jec1s37hwu$.bg5cvsul0r5$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <513faaf7$0$6626$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <aufd7vornmrk.2dxqrc3egrtg$.dlg@40tude.net> <khphpb$5f1$1@dont-email.me>
 <w46epyd1vjc2.1e1bviaog2kwi$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <51408e81$0$6577$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net>
 <dc71f389-dbfa-493f-8ca2-36445f130b4f@googlegroups.com>
 <lysj3zmbvv.fsf@pushface.org> <11rcs3gg4taww$.bylek8fsshyz$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <khqpu6$e19$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <99929f93-b80f-47c3-8a37-c81002733754@googlegroups.com>
 <khthb1$6e0$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <87ec4b1d-f7cd-49a4-8cff-d44aeb76a1ad@googlegroups.com>
 <ki02fr$1lo$1@munin.nbi.dk> <wccr4jgibf1.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <51443b97$0$6635$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1363466998 8845 192.74.137.71 (16 Mar 2013 20:49:58
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2013 20:49:58 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:8KjawEcV8zW1GPOPqxG1moIWIA4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: 2013-03-16T16:49:58-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de> writes:

> On 15.03.13 22:46, Robert A Duff wrote:
>> That works in C because all sizes
>> are known at compile time.
>
> That's true in C89, but C99 makes sizeof an execution
> time operator for variable length arrays.

Ah, yes.  Thanks for the reminder.

>...The operand
> is then evaluated.

Right.  It seems confusing to me that the operand of sizeof is
evaluated in some cases but not others.  In Ada, the prefix of
'Size is always evaluated.

My suggestion that the prefix of 'Type could be unevaluated (always)
could work for the same reason sizeof can work like it does in C89.

- Bob