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: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-08 07:15:00 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada
Date: 8 Feb 2002 07:15:00 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <4519e058.0202080714.1bf916bb@posting.google.com>
References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> <3c639940@pull.gecm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1013181300 10216 127.0.0.1 (8 Feb 2002 15:15:00
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 8 Feb 2002 15:15:00 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19772
Date: 2002-02-08T15:15:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@nospam.baesystems.com> wrote in message news:<3c639940@pull.gecm.com>...
> How about removing the 'confirming enumeration rep specs' that
> are no longer necessary in Ada95?
> 
> e.g.
> from:
> 
>     type An_Enumeration is (Foo, Bar);
>     for  An_Enumeration is (Foo => 0, Bar => 1);

They weren't necessary in Ada 83 either were they?