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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2fa53692def716b5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: null range from 1 element discrete type
Date: 1999/11/22
Message-ID: <81c2sg$bvm$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 551698714
References: <v03020900b45ad0cb9379F@[192.54.146.15]>
 <3835D5A0.F906D31D@mitre.org>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x43.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Nov 22 18:43:30 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-11-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3835D5A0.F906D31D@mitre.org>,
  "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@mitre.org> wrote:
>     Technically there is no "perfect" solution, as the
compiler is
> allowed to choose a size of zero bits for such a type.  But if
the
> (sub)type is a generic formal type, you shouldn't have to
worry about
> this possibility.


By the way, the above is a complete red herring, this has
nothing to do with the number of bits used to represent the
type, it is a question purely at the semantic level.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.