Re: The Incredible Shrinking Type

[Nicolas Brunot <n.brunot@cadwin.com>]

> <So there is definitely no portability requirement here, (other than
> to avoid making the assumptions).>

Nobody said that, except you justifying type shrinking by RM requiring
portability ...

> <Yes it may be odd that the parameter size is 64 rather than 128 here>

Odd is not the right word, unexpected, unsafe or illogical would be more
appropriate

> <is definitely nothing in the RM that suggests otherwise (let alone
> requiring otherwise).>

Right, the "normal" behavior (without shrinking) would just be suggested
by common sense, and also ... by gnat documentation itself ...