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,d9fa52ca55dcef0e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Dale Stanbrough <dale@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Packed array size question....
Date: 1997/03/19
Message-ID: <5gnj47$pe8$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 226946016
Distribution: world
References: <mheaney-ya023680001303970016240001@news.ni.net>
 <dewar.858442089@merv> <mheaney-ya023680001603971621360001@news.ni.net>
 <dewar.858568318@merv>
X-XXMessage-ID: <AF559C14EF011035@sambar.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar writes:

"Better is O'Size / Storage_Unit -- makes it clearer what is going on, and
 indeed to be absolutely right, you should write

 (O'Size + (Storage_Unit - 1)) / Storage_Unit

 which is an annoying mouthful, and i agree that an attribute would be nice.
 We considered adding it to GNAT, but it would seem to create confusion,
 given the Value_Size vs Object_Size issue."


 
	Object'Storage_Unit_Size
	Object'Size_In_Storage_Units
	
?

Dale