From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 19 Jul 93 16:56:04 GMT
From: 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)
Subject: Re: Forcing default representations
Message-ID: <CAF8DG.AqH@irvine.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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