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: 103376,514627f9964b6e38
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Using the GNAT defined attribute: 'Enum_Rep
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-ID: <EG8w4J.Fn6@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271002646
References: <97082719523509@psavax.pwfl.com> <EG7Enp.3DF@world.std.com>
 <34147DAB.463@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680000809972005530001@news.ni.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <mheaney-ya023680000809972005530001@news.ni.net>,
Matthew Heaney <mheaney@ni.net> wrote:
>Again, the RM does define internal representation, in RM95 13.4 (8).  See
>also paragraph 8a in the AARM.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about that paragraph.  Sorry for the
misinformation.

By the way, if I were designing a language from scratch, I would say
that the compiler can do whatever it likes in the absence of rep
clauses.  But I would provide an easy way to say you want the "obvious"
representation (which is (0, 1, 2, ...) for enums).  The problem with
Ada 83 was that you had to write a whole bunch of stuff to say you want
what you would get anyway, which is why 13.4(8) exists.  That problem
still exists for record_rep_clauses, for example, although "pragma
Convention(C);" comes close to what I want, here.

- Bob