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: 103376,7e29322ee367c19d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Mike Silva" Subject: Re: Unchecked_Conversion on different sized types -- problem? Date: 2000/01/13 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 572299168 References: <85lht1$l8c$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 X-Complaints-To: news@wenet.net X-Trace: news.wenet.net 947802610 206.169.137.33 (Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:30:10 PST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 14:30:10 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-01-13T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Jim Rogers wrote in message <85lht1$l8c$1@nnrp1.deja.com>... > > The simple solution to this is to declare a set of integer constants, >not enumerated types. The constants will require no conversions at >all. Let me ask this then: what value is it to be able to specify the representation of an enumeration? It seems to me that when you do this you always want, at some point, to "get at" the value of an enumeration. Maybe the crux of my question (or confusion) is that while enumeration representations are allowed, there doesn't seem to be any clean way to use them (assuming that anything called "Unchecked_" isn't "clean"). Mike