Re: Forcing default representations

[agate!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!network.ucsd. edu!news.cerf.net!shrike.irvine.com!adam@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Adam Beneschan)]

In article <9307131922.AA04017@eight-ball.boeing.com> 
crispen@eight-ball.boeing.com (crispen) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>   But, I can define this record:
>
>      for Landing_Gear_Parameters use
>       record
>         Position   at 0 range Four_Bytes;
>         State      at 4 range One_Byte;
>         -- 3 bytes spare
>         Crab_Angle at 8 range Four_Bytes;
>       end record;
>      Landing_Gear_Parameters_Size : constant := 12 * Bytes;
>      for Landing_Gear_Parameters'size use Landing_Gear_Parameters_Size;
>
[more stuff deleted]
>   p.p.s: I've defined:
>
>      type One_Byte is range 0..7;
>      type Two_Bytes is range 0..15;
>      type Three_Bytes is range 0..23;
>      type Four_Bytes is range 0..31;
>
>   Cute trick, eh?

Is this cute trick actually legal?  The LRM defines

    component_clause ::= COMPONENT_name at STATIC_simple_expression
       range STATIC_range;           [13.4(2)]

    range ::= RANGE_attribute | simple_expression .. simple_expression
                                     [3.5(2)]

I don't see how a type name fits into the component clause of a record
rep clause, given these syntax definitions.  Am I missing something
somewhere else in the LRM?  Or is there an AI that allows this trick?

                                -- thanks, Adam