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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't.
Date: 1996/03/26
Message-ID: <DounIK.KHA@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144221316
references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <dewar.827698571@schonberg>
 <Dou0EI.G81@world.std.com> <dewar.827788093@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.827788093@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>The ARG has a LOT of work to do here I think!

Apparently so.  And it's my fault, at least partly.  (I must say:
writing chap 13 was about the most boring part of writing RM95!)

>I agree that the ACVC suite was weak on record packing, that at the time
>was a concession to the reality that several compilers did not implement
>record packing, but ACVC 1.10 is MUCH fiercer than the RM 95 requirements
>in many other respects.

Agreed.

>So to summarize, I think it would be wrong if 7 packed boolean objects
>in a record took 56 bits, but packing them tightly together with one fill
>bit does not seem to violate the above paragraph to me.

OK, fair enough.  I don't really see how packing 7 bits into 8 is "as
tightly as possible" -- it seems to me 7 bits in 7 bits is tighter.  But
the end result is: people don't agree on what the paragraph means, so
let the ARG decide.

I wrote that paragraph, and I can tell you what I *meant* but that
doesn't necessarily mean much, if people understand what I actually
wrote differently.

- Bob