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: 103376,81bce7ee9133fb42 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: GNAT Ada for DOS - Reading Integers Problem Date: 1996/02/23 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140885635 references: <4g2efj$d5d@susscsc1.rdg.ac.uk> <4gdivm$10f5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <4gfsuq$10f5@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff said, replying to Norm Cohen: "> Low at 0 range 0 .. 7; > High at 0 range 8 .. 15; > >from its parent's record representation clause, but to interpret that >text big-endianly instead of little-endianly! >(Fortunately, the Founding Fathers follow this newsgroup and can provide >a definitive answer about their Original Intent.) Well, *this* Founding Father can't. I have to admit that I never thought about this particular example. However, I think that's what the RM says -- you inherit the record rep clause, but you override the bit order. That seems like the only reasonable intepretation." Robert replies Well that's a surprise, I always read the RM this way, and assumed that the whole point of Bit_Order was to provide this capability. Like Bob, I certainly can't see any other way to read the RM :-)