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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2cb1f0b6d642e1dc
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.249.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!transit3.readnews.com!s09-10.readnews.com!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:26:33 -0400
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Pascal Calling Convention
References: <9b04626e-567d-408c-aab3-39b964b3ffd6@l2g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vstkpc1rule2fv@index.ici> <ime30d$rrk$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <op.vstobjtxule2fv@index.ici>
 <F8mdnYCca6tRJBfQnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lnipv89vg7.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <wccd3lf5gq6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <lny64384wx.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> <wccbp0xy5hu.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4d90efdd$1$14806$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
 <330393be-cb82-4cd8-ba44-6e59af7b75bf@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <330393be-cb82-4cd8-ba44-6e59af7b75bf@v11g2000prb.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4d90fd41$1$14782$882e7ee2@usenet-news.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: acc23722.usenet-news.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=T]>:UB\e9gQJfZ;BoTLloPQFZ3T]GPM]WmX0AG3X_jU_JL<Jc<<WKm^i22nWOTKLQSMcWTcYQB@PQg60;Ok]oN^^;<9YUG?;JFR
X-Complaints-To: abuse@usenet-news.net
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:19522
Date: 2011-03-28T17:26:33-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 3/28/2011 5:16 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
> I hope your "favorite data structure" comment was sarcastic.  I would
> expect this code to behave incorrectly a large portion of the time;
> specifically, if I read the code right, once you add any element to
> the set, the program is likely to think 0 is in the set whether you've
> added it or not.

I wrote the code from memory so it's possible I made a mistake,
but I don't think you're correct - you're likely not reading the
code right.