I’ve had my hands tied many times over the years by restrictions requiring locally static expressions. These situations are annoying and don’t always have a low-impact work around. I am not sure that whatever advantages accrue from having a two-step translation process (Analysis, Elaboration) outweigh the cost of these limitations. -Farrell Daniel Kho asked and Tristan Gingold answered: <snip> > Yes, this should work since the aggregate becomes one with only a " > single element association and this element association has a single > choice" . Now, my question is why the analyzer can't check at the > global level? Or, another way to put it, why isn't a globally static > discrete range allowed? Because during analysis, the values of globally static expressions are not known. They are known only during elaboration. Tristan. <snip> Daniel Kho wrote: <snip> I find the LRM rather restrictive in how named associations of array aggregates are only "allowed to have a choice that is not locally static, or likewise a choice that is a null range, only if the aggregate includes a single element association and this element association has a single choice". Is there some history on why such a restriction is in place? <snip> -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Wed Apr 1 10:55:06 2015
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 01 2015 - 10:56:06 PDT