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-Thread: a07f3367d7,f7c38a023cf370dc
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: okellogg <okellogg@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Should representation clauses be complete for each bit?
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 07:12:55 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <4606c5b0-7da1-43d0-a490-ba842f7621f7@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <73c10395-ec4f-4a02-b0fc-e35bc14424fa@e18g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <wcczkk9ngxy.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4e26f324$0$6549$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <wccsjq0vp2h.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <b3cb81ff-3e7f-4ff2-aa83-fa7de9814eab@dp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <m2sjq09h6y.fsf@pushface.org> <wcchb6fbs04.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <j0d3mh$oae$1@munin.nbi.dk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.156.46.211
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1311775975 4471 127.0.0.1 (27 Jul 2011 14:12:55
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 14:12:55 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.156.46.211;
 posting-account=a23u_AkAAAB-Xz81hSqodYsmJRrMwioK
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 GSM7272, 1.1 GSM7273, 1.1 GSW7281
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: VCRUHALNK
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.1;
 Trident/4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729;
 .NET4.0C; .NET4.0E),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:21354
Date: 2011-07-27T07:12:55-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 23 Jul., 02:13, "Randy Brukardt" <ra...@rrsoftware.com> wrote:
> [...]
> =A0I understand the complaint here, but I still think that explictly
> specifying the bit packing in this way is best. The syntax that requires
> mentioning both the low and high bits is overkill, but that has nothing t=
o
> do with this particular issue -- it is overkill for *any* record. We real=
ly
> need an alternative shorter syntax for these lines in a record
> representation clause:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Gap1 at 0 bit 1;
>
> or something like that. No one ever wants to give the high bound in these
> clauses -- it's almost pointless and a real pain if it might change (note
> the most general form given above).

So the number given after "bit" is the starting bit? I like that idea.
(Well, after all we still need to be aware of sizes, be it just to
figure out the next available starting bit.)

Oliver