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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e08ffaff681705c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: guerby@gnat.com (Laurent Guerby) Subject: Re: access aliased obstacle Date: 1996/07/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167500911 sender: guerby@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu references: <4rsmn6$hvc@news1.delphi.com> organization: New York University reply-to: guerby@gnat.com newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert> Not quite right, there is no reason why a discriminant in a Robert> variant record should be stored "in the record" in Ada, that Robert> is just a (common) implementation choice. In fact if you are Robert> using sub types extensively it is attractive to choose an Robert> alternative representation where the discriminants are stored Robert> separately, The idea is that there are stored somewhere, "in the record" is an unfortunate wording ;-). BTW, is there any compiler that use the alternative you proposed ? How to get the following right without storing "in the record"? type T (D : boolean) is null record; function F return T is begin return T'(True); end F; begin if F.D then ... end; -- Laurent Guerby , Team Ada. "Use the Source, Luke. The Source will be with you, always (GPL)."