From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_SHORT
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 11 Dec 91 18:29:46 GMT
From: elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!unix.cis.pitt.edu!gv
lf3.gvl.unisys.com!email!parkhill@ames.arc.nasa.gov  (parkhill)
Subject: Re: 'SIZE attribute of a type
Message-ID: <5898@email.sp.unisys.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>parkhill@email.sp.unisys.com (parkhill) writes: 
>>Image a compiler was smart enough to understand baised number ranges. 
>
>>   type b is range 9 .. 10; 
>>        or 
>>   type b is range 2**31 - 2 .. 2**31 - 1;
>
>
>>If the compiler can generate code that only uses 1 bit then b'Size 
>>should return 1.
> 
>Oh, that compilers were so cleverly written! 
>

> Deleted text.




My point on the compiler having the capability to use one bit is that I
find the utility of type_name'size is now questionable.  Lets say the
compiler is capable of using 1 bit but won't do it in most situations.
How can any programmer use type_name'size to any practical purpose?  It 
seems less useful than Entry_Name'Count.  However, I am sure that the 
justification for the change to type_name'size is rock solid.
 
Robert Parkhill