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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c3b704caaa76c7c5,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-12-18 07:03:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: wojtek@power.com.pl (Wojtek Narczynski) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Constants instead of enum? Date: 18 Dec 2002 07:03:21 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ad0dd8a.0212180703.71f5b6b7@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.55.195.178 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1040223801 13133 127.0.0.1 (18 Dec 2002 15:03:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Dec 2002 15:03:21 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:32021 Date: 2002-12-18T15:03:21+00:00 List-Id: Hello, I have the following situation: I read request record from network, an Unsigned_8 (byte) denotes its type. Valid types are 1..10. Response record has the same structure as request record. I also want to reuse the memory allocated for request as the response. Now problem: for every unimplemented request type (outside 1..10 range) I am supposed to send a response record with type 11 back. I am trying to use enumeration with representation clause for this, but it just doesn't work. I read an Unsigned_8 from network, and all its values are valid and should be handled gracefully, so I cannot use this enum in the request structure. Because of this I have to convert from Unsigned_8 to enumeration, but only sometimes. Then I have to use unchecked conversion to get the enumeration's underlying Unsigned_8 to store it in the response record (same structure and memory) as request, so it has to be Unsigned_8. If I defined types as constants for 1..11 range the amount of code necessary and conversions will reduce. So my question is - would this be fine to use a group of consts in this specific case instead of an enum? I could encapsulate them into a nested package. Thanks, Wojtek