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: 103376,971aa11c293c3db1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-07-23 01:23:24 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!opentransit.net!proxad.net!nerim.net!norfair.nerim.net!not-for-mail
From: "Bertrand Augereau" <baugereau@ifrance.kom>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada The Best Language?
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 10:27:27 +0200
Organization: Nerim -- xDSL Internet Provider
Message-ID: <9jgmtp$3a1$1@norfair.nerim.net>
References: <5be89e2f.0107170838.c71ad61@posting.google.com>
 <tl9tq98nt23c4c@corp.supernews.com>
 <5be89e2f.0107180235.726d46a8@posting.google.com>
 <9j3rrd$g71$1@s1.read.news.oleane.net>
 <Pine.BSF.4.21.0107181114410.3159-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <5be89e2f.0107181300.4b4e93d7@posting.google.com> <3B57195E.A3A3FED@home.com>
 <9j93u6$1ua8$1@norfair.nerim.net> <3B586A17.862BA84D@home.com>
 <9j9s3t$kn8$1@wanadoo.fr> <mailman.995728349.29994.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <9jej7c$7q1$1@wanadoo.fr> <mailman.995834131.28360.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <9jff9l$sqp$1@wanadoo.fr> <3b5bd4b2.1217171@news.cis.dfn.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: aboukir-101-2-1-inutero.adsl.nerim.net
X-Trace: norfair.nerim.net 995876601 3393 62.4.19.69 (23 Jul 2001 08:23:21
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@nerim.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 08:23:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10448
Date: 2001-07-23T10:27:27+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>
> enum COLOR { BLUE, RED, GREEN };
>
> int main (void)
> {
>    COLOR X = BLUE;
>
>    switch (X)
>    {
>        case 0   : break;
>    }
>    return 0;
> }
>

I don't see this type of code as a coding mistake, it is just a nonsense way
of doing it. This can only be an intentional mistake and type safety is
there mainly for protecting you against non-intentional mistakes. That's
what forbidding implicit int->enum is for.
I'm not sure a compiler has to take care of this error, though Ada
programmers might think otherwise.
It is often nice to have a enum->int conversion, especially when you can map
your enum to some int you need.

enum BOOL {
    FALSE = 0,
    TRUE = !0;
};

Then if you need a enum->int mapping, you just have it for free by the fact
enum are reprensented by int in the machine (as with Ada, I suppose). I
think you can do that in Ada if you need it with using clause.