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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,15a453f8241a09c5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Booelan Function and sizeof operator
Date: 1996/04/11
Message-ID: <4kk3i8$om9@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 147006665
distribution: world
references: <Pine.SOL.3.91.960410173604.18640A-100000@unixa.lancs.ac.uk>
content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
x-xxmessage-id: <AD93CF64FE021B17@obibicut.cs.rmit.edu.au>
organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"sizeof correspond to 'Size in Ada"


...except of course that sizeof returns size in bytes, 
'size returns size in bits.

(I didn't want a repeat of a message posted here about
2 years ago from a student who was *amazed* that Ada
records could be *8* times larger than an equivalent C
struct :-).


Dale