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: 103376,2d939a7e1280607b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Representation clause in records?
Date: 1999/02/05
Message-ID: <yecu2x05oow.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 441197113
References: <m2iudgijh1.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@nusku.cts.com
X-Trace: nusku.cts.com 918262981 8080 198.68.168.21 (6 Feb 1999 01:03:01 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Date: 6 Feb 1999 01:03:01 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-06T01:03:01+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.