Re: Representation clause for enumeratives

["Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org>]

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:9657ua$bjh$1@nnrp1.deja.com...
: In article <aDlh6.4498$y03.296626@news.flash.net>,
:   "Ken Garlington" <Ken.Garlington@computer.org> wrote:
: > I'd like that, but I use the AdaGIDE that comes with 3.12p,
: > and it doesn't allow the messages to be cut and pasted.
:
: Again, I suggest an update, also it is really not that hard
: to enter the necessary commands (surely someone coming from
: a VMS background can manage to do things in command mode :-)

Manage, yes -- but there's a difference from it being *possible* and being
*easy* to do (particularly when you're scrambling to finish exploring the
idea before going to work, and you haven't used command mode in a while).
Surely someone coming from an Ada background understands this distinction :)

In any case, I downloaded 3.13p (and AdaGIDE, which still doesn't allow
copies from the message screen). The 3.13p reference manual is much clearer
on the subject, although the phrase "The only restriction on enumeration
clauses is that the range of values must be representable" is still open to
interpretation. For example, I'd argue that -16#FFFF_FFFF# .. -1 is both
"representable" in 32 bits and in the range System.Min_Int ..
System.Max_Int. Words about treating a set with no negative values as
unsigned values, and as unbiased signed values otherwise would have been
clearer to me.