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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ac8a7e7d3e637dc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-23 11:30:48 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: snarflemike@yahoo.com (Mike Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Is there a better (Ada) way?
Date: 23 Oct 2003 11:30:47 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <20619edc.0310231030.431acd33@posting.google.com>
References: <20619edc.0310221056.4c92d10c@posting.google.com>
 <%GHlb.1106$mZ5.9467@attbi_s54>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 154.6.152.68
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1066933848 23003 127.0.0.1 (23 Oct 2003 18:30:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:30:48 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1531
Date: 2003-10-23T11:30:47-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<%GHlb.1106$mZ5.9467@attbi_s54>...
> I don't know if its really more "Ada like" but here is the approach I would
> take.
> 
> Rougly following your conventions I would add a type definition:
> 
>   type SReg16_T is range -2**15..2**15-1;
>   for SReg16_T'size use 16;
> 
> Then use a type conversion for a sign extend:
>   SReg16_T( PB.Offset5 )
> 
> And an instance of unchecked conversion to convert to a SReg16_T to a
> Reg16_T:
> 
> function To_Reg16_T is new Ada.Unchecked_Conversion( SReg16_T, Reg16_T );
> 
> Then the expression in your example would read:
> 
> R16 := R16 + To_Reg16_T( SReg16_T( PB.Offset5 ) );
> 
Yes, I like this better -- in fact, I came up with the same thing
myself last night in trying various alternatives.  Thanks for
confirming my instincts!

(I also have to deal with signed 8-bit offsets, which pretty much puts
the array method out of the running for me...)

Mike