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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-08 07:53:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!newscon01.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr12.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> <3c639940@pull.gecm.com> <4519e058.0202080714.1bf916bb@posting.google.com> Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.180.40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr12.news.prodigy.com 1013183542 ST000 208.191.180.40 (Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:52:22 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 10:52:22 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: Q[R_PJSCTS@USVT^ORHL_IXBUSXHQD\MNPWZKB]MPXHBTWICYFWUQBKZQLYJX\_ITFD_KFVLUN[DOM_A_NSYNWPFWNS[XV\I]PZ@BQ[@CDQDPCL^FKCBIPC@KLGEZEFNMDYMKHRL_YYYGDSSODXYN@[\BK[LVTWI@AXGQCOA_SAH@TPD^\AL\RLGRFWEARBM Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 15:52:22 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19777 Date: 2002-02-08T15:52:22+00:00 List-Id: "Ted Dennison" wrote in message news:4519e058.0202080714.1bf916bb@posting.google.com... > "Martin Dowie" wrote in message news:<3c639940@pull.gecm.com>... > > How about removing the 'confirming enumeration rep specs' that > > are no longer necessary in Ada95? > > > > e.g. > > from: > > > > type An_Enumeration is (Foo, Bar); > > for An_Enumeration is (Foo => 0, Bar => 1); > > They weren't necessary in Ada 83 either were they? The issue in Ada 83 was that one didn't know what the underlying representation would actually be, and of course sometimes that mattered. If you really wanted to be sure of the correspondence then you had to write the clause and hope that the compiler would recognize them as merely confirming (for the sake of performance). Supposedly DEC Ada did some optimizations that involved scaling the underlying representation for use elsewhere but I never found out if it was true. Priorities were the same way -- you had to specify all of them if you cared about any of them, because there was no way of knowing what they would be otherwise. --- Patrick Rogers Consulting and Training in: http://www.classwide.com Real-Time/OO Languages progers@classwide.com Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis (281)648-3165 Software Fault Tolerance