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: 103376,45a9122ddf5fcf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Rules for Representation of Subtypes
Date: 1996/09/29
Message-ID: <DyGy7y.Hy5@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 185922955
references: <dewar.843920464@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.843920464@schonberg>,
Robert Dewar <dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
I wrote:
>It should."
And Robert replied:
>I am completely puzzled, you can specify the size of types and the size of
>objects, what on earth woul it mean to specify Storage_Size for an array
>(as opposed to specifying the type or object size for the array).

The complaint was that Ada measures everythng in bits, and why can't you
specify sizes in bytes, or storage units, or whatever, which is much
more convenient in many cases.  That's what I was saying "It should" to.

- Bob