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: 103376,e710f7d3f890e76b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Base64-Encoding
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:09:44 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1192633784.534337.221490@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
References: <20071015161229.3f439230@cube.tz.axivion.com>
   <ygebqb0h1v0.fsf@hugsarin.dmusyd.edu>
   <20071015165435.0eef160d@cube.tz.axivion.com>
   <bl10ff.aok.ln@hunter.axlog.fr>
   <20071015183919.79798fe6@cube.tz.axivion.com>
   <uzlyjs5lf.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
   <20071017160703.3e80209e@cube.tz.axivion.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1192633791 25730 127.0.0.1 (17 Oct 2007 15:09:51
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 15:09:51 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <20071017160703.3e80209e@cube.tz.axivion.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:2472
Date: 2007-10-17T08:09:44-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 17, 7:07 am, Stefan Bellon <sbel...@sbellon.de> wrote:

> Yes, I am not forced to exactly do it this way. In fact, there have
> been discussions in this group explaining how to do it in several other
> ways. I was just wondering because my idea initially looked like such an
> elegant way. ;-)

It does seem like it would have been nice, and maybe it could be
argued that some sort of standard representation clause or pragma
should be added to give more control over how packed array elements
are stored.  The problem is that it would have to work not only for
big- and little-endian machines, but also on machines that are not
byte-addressable---there are still a few of those around.

                            -- Adam