Re: Representation clauses for base-64 encoding

[Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>]

On 11-12-29 02:50 , Robert A Duff wrote:
> Niklas Holsti<niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>  writes:
>
>> Yes, a compiler cannot claim to support annex C (Systems Programming)
>> unless it implements chapter 13 as recommended, so that all the
>> "shoulds" are implemented. But this is only an argument for "probable"
>> portability, since supporting annex C is optional.
>
> Right.
>
> But of course supporting the Ada standard is optional, too.  ;-)

Yes, but we are talking about Ada programming, which to me means using 
an Ada compiler that follows the standard. For me, the issue is what 
level of portability the standard provides; the actual current 
implementations are secondary.

> It's easy to forget that standards don't actually _require_ anybody
> to do anything.  So, unfortunately, the best you can be sure of is
> "probable" portability.

I hope you would agree that Standard.Integer "certainly" has at least 16 
bits in a conforming Ada implementation, so that is one point of 
"certain" portability. The portability of representation clauses is less 
certain, since conformance is optional. In contrast, package Interfaces 
and its shift operations are in the core of the language (RM 1.1.2(5)), 
to which all imoplementations shall conform (RM 1.1.2(17)).

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
       .      @       .