Re: Representation clause for enumeratives

[Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>]

In article <OExh6.5397$y03.334735@news.flash.net>,
  "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
> For example, I'd argue that -16#FFFF_FFFF# .. -1 is both
> "representable" in 32 bits and in the range System.Min_Int ..
> System.Max_Int.

> Words about treating a set with no negative values as
> unsigned values, and as unbiased signed values otherwise
> would have been clearer to me.

Don't hesitate to make documentation suggestions, many
improvements to the documentation come from suggestions
sent to report@gnat.com.

In this particular case, the RM of course does not allow
biasing of representations when an enumeration representation
clause is present, since this is one of the few (really the
only) case where the RM has something to say about
representation, and indeed the ACVC tests (I wrote the relevant
ones :-) test this by doing unchecked conversion.

But it never hurts to emphasize things in the documentation,
so I agree it would be helpful to point out that biased
representations cannot be used for enumeration types!


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/