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: 103376,8bdad4829476c86f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: James Squire Subject: Re: Size of CHARACTER in Ada 83 Date: 1996/09/01 Message-ID: <322A0E1A.1CA9@mdc.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177877314 references: <32276B5E.51B1@mdc.com> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: McDonnell Douglas Aerospace mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 2.02 (Win16; I) Date: 1996-09-01T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > "It seems to me that those who want a 256 value CHARACTER should have to > change their code rather than me change mine, but I have this funny > feeling the case is "moot" (with apologies to Robert Dewar or whoever > that was that was complaining about improper usage of that word). Is it?" > > Well it is certainly not a moot issue, because it has been officially > decided that Character will always be 256 values (by the ISO standards I believe that is exactly what I said. Don't you remember the argument about "moot" = "officially decided"????? I was trying to tip my cap to you because you use the word differently (I think it was you), but to me and everyone I have ever known, that is what "moot" means. > group producing the Ada 95 standard), and that it may optionally be > 256 values in Ada 83 (by the Zandfoort meeting of WG9, affirming > the AI you mention) [moot means arguable, undecided]. See above. > I think the compiler writer who changed to 256 characters was doing > the right thing. Rational in particular has I believe made this change, > and particularly wanted to do so, since the 128 character limitation > was a real problem for them, esp3ecially in Europe, and I think that > Rational certainly made the right decision. I have been informed of this by the vendor in question, and retracted my hard line statement about how those who want 256 characters should have to change. > If you really want a 128 value character type, define it yourself > > type My_Char is new Character range Character'Val(0) .. Character'Val(127); > > that will work in all versions of Ada. > > But shouldn't you really change your program? Any program that restricts > charcters to 128 values these days is obsolescent it seems to me. You completely missed one statement in my post: "The problem is that this code is generated by ALEX". As I just told someone else privately, I could have figured this out all by myself. My whole reason for posting was to find out if there was something I could do OTHER than manually modifying code that is automatically generated by a tool. -- James Squire mailto:jsquire@mdc.com MDA Avionics Tools & Processes McDonnell Douglas Aerospace http://www.mdc.com/ Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's "Commander, this little breach of security isn't going to affect my Christmas bonus, is it?" -- Garibaldi, "The Gathering"