Re: Enumeration representation clause surprise.

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

Adam Beneschan wrote:

> ... technically it may be that
> the RM doesn't require the specified representation to be honored for
> *any* objects, stand-alone or component.  At least I couldn't find
> anything specific, unless this is "generally implied" by the whole
> chapter or by 13.1.  It may be that it's legal for an implementation
> to accept an enumeration representation clause and then never apply
> it.

There's a "Note" in RM13.4(11/1) that says "Unchecked_Conversion 
may be used to query the internal codes used for an enumeration 
type". I don't know if "Notes" are normative parts of the standard. 
It would be interesting to know what Unchecked_Conversion gives for 
the 1-bit record component in Markus' problematic record. If it 
gives 0 and 1, as encoded, and not 1 and 2, as required in the 
enumeration representation clause, it would seem to violate this 
"Note".

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .