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: 103376,64ff9ad5eeabedcd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Unconstrained Objects
Date: 1995/04/06
Message-ID: <dewar.797220409@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100939436
references: <3lh61g$1hu@news.kreonet.re.kr> <3lt22a$18p@maple.enet.net>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-04-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Dan is wrong on several points. Most notably, it is perfectly legal for
a compiler to use a represetnation for a subtype that is different from
the basee type, and in certain cases (constrained subtypes of unconstrained
variant records with default discriminants), it is a common implementation.
But some compilers will even use a different representation for subtypes
of integer, and this is perfectly legitimate.