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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no 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: 2002-02-11 17:12:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 10:27:02 -0500 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> <3c639940@pull.gecm.com> <4519e058.0202080714.1bf916bb@posting.google.com> <3C65BFF4.F15A07D0@earthlink.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1013441224 23780 136.170.200.133 (11 Feb 2002 15:27:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Feb 2002 15:27:04 GMT 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 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19892 Date: 2002-02-11T15:27:04+00:00 List-Id: I'd agree that all too often folks would slap a rep clause on something where the internal representation didn't matter. But often it was done for something reasonably approximating a good reason: "I'm not sure how this type may be used as the system grows. Perhaps we'll be putting it into external messages or files and it will be important to insure that we know/control the representation..." "Sure, we know it goes 0, 1, 2... for now, but we're getting it from some other source and we have to deal with the possibility of a different representation later..." "*I* know that the compiler is giving us 0, 1, 2... and *you* know the compiler is giving us 0, 1, 2..., but the standard doesn't *guarantee* that this must be the case so what if some perverted, sick, twisted compiler writer changes his mind with a later version of the compiler? (or a different brand, or a later standard...)" Maybe it bordered on paranoia - but paranoia is just a kind of awareness & awareness is just a form of love. :-) Its a good thing that Ada95 promised to provide what one would reasonably expect from an enumeration. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Marc A. Criley" wrote in message news:3C65BFF4.F15A07D0@earthlink.net... > > I saw myriad instances of these specification in the code from certain > projects. And the thing is, they were rarely in situations where the > underlying representation was of any interest, the enumerations were > being used as nothing more than enumerations. The only thing I could > figure was that it was paranoia from some of the early Ada adopters. >