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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!inmet!ishmael!inmet!authorplaceholder
From: ryer@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: enumeration literal/internal codes
Message-ID: <124000032@inmet>
Date: 20 Jan 89 15:04:00 GMT
References: <1494@wayback.UUCP>
Nf-ID: #R:wayback.UUCP:-149400:inmet:124000032:000:658
Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!ryer    Jan 20 10:04:00 1989
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


When you put a rep spec on an enumerated type, the type is more like a
bit string or packed integer than just a "pure" enumeration.  When you
start accessing the internal value with explicit code, the type begins
to look quite unlike an enumerated type.  Perhaps the application that
wants to use these types would be happier with _named constants_ of a type
that is a packed array of booleans or an integer with a restricted
range.  I'm sure that someone will be proposing access to the internals
of an enumerated type for Ada 9X, so it may be important to know whether
the particular application really wants to be coded that way.

Mike Ryer
Intermetrics