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: 103376,6339fea48a1b8cda
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!out01b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in01.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!news-out1.kabelfoon.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!xindi.nntp.kabelfoon.nl!news.banetele.no!uio.no!fi.sn.net!newsfeed1.fi.sn.net!news.song.fi!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:59:12 +0300
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20060628 Debian/1.7.8-1sarge7.1
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Enumeration representation clause surprise.
References: <g2odf9$3um$1@nntp.ilk.net>
 <0cbb6daf-01e9-40f5-855c-4f1d45cb0096@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
 	<g2oi22$cae$1@nntp.ilk.net> <87abhs6qyj.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
 	<55613982-679e-419d-8656-03b549393289@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com>
 	<871w346k4j.fsf@willow.rfc1149.net>
 <4a84770f-e273-41ad-a8ef-f22a9896b544@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <4a84770f-e273-41ad-a8ef-f22a9896b544@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <48502e38$0$23821$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
Organization: TDC Internet Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: laku61.adsl.netsonic.fi
X-Trace: 1213214264 news.tdc.fi 23821 81.17.205.61:33014
X-Complaints-To: abuse@tdcnet.fi
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:658
Date: 2008-06-11T22:59:12+03:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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
       .      @       .