From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Representation clause in records?
Date: 1999/02/05
Date: 1999-02-06T01:03:01+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <yecu2x05oow.fsf@king.cts.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m2iudgijh1.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com
Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> writes:
[...]
> (5) component_item ::= component_declaration | representation_clause
> (6) component_declaration ::=
> defining_identifier_list : component_definition [:= default_expression];
>
> I am playing around with ASIS and I was to the point of handling the
> representation clause here. My question is: What is the representation
> clause specified in (5)?
If I'm not mistaken, the grammar permits a representation clause here
only to allow for the possibility of implementation-defined
representation clauses. There are no language-defined rep clauses
that can appear in place of a component declaration -- and I don't
think any current implementations support such clauses.
If this is correct, you can probably get away with ignoring rep
clauses within record declarations. If it isn't, I'm sure I can count
on someone to point it out.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <*>
San Diego, California, USA <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-05 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-05 0:00 Representation clause in records? Corey Minyard
1999-02-05 0:00 ` Keith Thompson [this message]
1999-02-06 0:00 ` Steven Hovater
1999-02-06 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox