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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c6e6cdf6ff50e684 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-02-11 18:38:04 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!freenix!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!nntp.flash.net!news.flash.net!not-for-mail From: "Ken Garlington" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <95tqbh$ag7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <962n4v$fmg$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <27eh6.3787$y03.254014@news.flash.net> <963tu2$b0f$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <9657ua$bjh$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <967ar9$sq7$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Subject: Re: Representation clause for enumeratives X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:34:25 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.65.211.154 X-Complaints-To: abuse@flash.net X-Trace: news.flash.net 981945265 65.65.211.154 (Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:34:25 CST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 20:34:25 CST Organization: FlashNet Communications, http://www.flash.net Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5141 Date: 2001-02-12T02:34:25+00:00 List-Id: "Robert Dewar" wrote in message news:967ar9$sq7$1@nnrp1.deja.com... : In article , : "Ken Garlington" wrote: : > 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. : : Don't hesitate to make documentation suggestions, many : improvements to the documentation come from suggestions : sent to report@gnat.com. : : In this particular case, the RM of course does not allow : biasing of representations when an enumeration representation : clause is present, since this is one of the few (really the : only) case where the RM has something to say about : representation, and indeed the ACVC tests (I wrote the relevant : ones :-) test this by doing unchecked conversion. Would "biased" be the correct term for a representation of -16#FFFF_FFFF# .. -1, where you use two's complement convention to store all negative numbers (and ignore overflow)? I'm also curious about how the ACVC tests use unchecked conversion in a portable manner in this case. In particular, what are you converting _to_? : But it never hurts to emphasize things in the documentation, : so I agree it would be helpful to point out that biased : representations cannot be used for enumeration types! : : : Sent via Deja.com : http://www.deja.com/