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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,967a201c4428b348 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-03 05:42:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net.POSTED!d9c68f36!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3FF6C6AB.7070800@noplace.com> From: Marin David Condic User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 (OEM-HPQ-PRS1C03) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Enumeration representation References: <3FF57910.60406@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:42:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.165.25.174 X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net 1073137342 209.165.25.174 (Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:42:22 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2004 05:42:22 PST Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4072 Date: 2004-01-03T13:42:22+00:00 List-Id: Well, in the places where it is done in my project, it is typically there because someone wants to guarantee that the object(s) in question will be properly represented & understood on I/O. When the testing folks look at it with the monitor, there is info available to the monitor and the human tester to determine how to interpret the zeros and ones. The tools (and people) might one day be modified to understand that no rep clause means start counting from zero - but I won't hold my breath. ;-) If the compiler can recognize it as a special case & not generate ugly code, maybe we're all right. I'd have to go get someone to check the compiler output - but at this time we're not pressed for CPU cycles, so it sort of falls into the category of "why bother"? (other than intellectual curiosity.) MDC Pat Rogers wrote: > > Still, I think it is bad form to put them in when no longer required, > just in case your compiler does not recognize that nothing is changed. > The resulting code generated can be really ugly (in terms of > performance). > -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm Send Replies To: m o d c @ a m o g c n i c . r "Face it ladies, its not the dress that makes you look fat. Its the FAT that makes you look fat." -- Al Bundy ======================================================================