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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,71dcb452eafb5045
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch>
Subject: Re: Ada enumerations
Date: 1997/12/11
Message-ID: <34901D71.FD118790@elca-matrix.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 297271909
References: <348EDDC9.794B@hso.link.com> <dewar.881792609@merv>
Organization: ELCA Matrix SA
Reply-To: Mats.Weber@elca-matrix.ch
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-12-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar wrote:

> My own feeling is that unchecked conversion is adequate. In practice it
> should work fine in any reasonable compiler to just do a conversion to the
> largest unsigned type, even if the sizes do not match (I can't imah=gine a
> compiler not doing the "right" thing there).

Are you sure this will work if the machine is big endian ?

Isn't Unchecked_Conversion approximately like doing

   X : Enum;
   I : Integer;

   for I'Address use X'Address;