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-Thread: 103376,782d6c8a12248b09
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada Recursion with strings
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 07:29:48 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <758a1a91-7521-4ad3-9af0-a79d434ae60e@v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <ff8b4b01-211b-4487-8184-85563f4148db@t42g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>
	<KGxEk.366896$yE1.159169@attbi_s21>
 <b6494560-0154-463d-a280-e17ec0a953b7@d70g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
	<EtzEk.367018$yE1.229235@attbi_s21> <wccljx9yv1y.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
	<2fJEk.367687$yE1.299201@attbi_s21>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1222871389 24552 127.0.0.1 (1 Oct 2008 14:29:49
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 14:29:49 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: v28g2000hsv.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
	posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.7.12)
	Gecko/20050922 Fedora/1.7.12-1.3.1,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2187
Date: 2008-10-01T07:29:48-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Oct 1, 4:34 am, "Jeffrey R. Carter"
<spam.jrcarter....@spam.acm.org> wrote:
> Robert A Duff wrote:
>
> > Do you really think that's useful in this case, where 2**8
> > appears several times close together?  What would you call
> > that named number -- Two_To_The_Eighth?
>
> I'd probably do
>
> Bits_Per_Byte   : constant := 8;
> Values_Per_Byte : constant := 2 ** Bits_Per_Byte;

Yep, the advantage of that is that if the people who design the
Internet communication protocols suddenly decide that IP addresses are
going to use 9-bit bytes, all you have to do is change one constant,
rather than try to find all the 8's in your code and change them,
which is more error-prone.

                            -- Adam