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: 103376,8272e612db888282
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: -ve values in enumeration rep clauses.
Date: 1996/06/15
Message-ID: <dewar.834846974@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 160462569
references: <5c3p6DALoKwxEwb0@djcull.demon.co.uk>
 <4prd9a$muh@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-06-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Darrel asked about an interesting problem where enuemration literals are
not ordered. This is of course illegal, as GNAT will be happy to inform you:

     1. procedure w is
     2.  type A_Type is
     3.         ( A, B, C );
     4.  for A_Type use
     5.         (
     6.           A => -1,
     7.           B => -2,
                  |
        >>> enumeration value for "B" not ordered

     8.           C => -3
                  |
        >>> enumeration value for "C" not ordered

     9.         );
    10.  for A_Type'Size use 8;
    11. begin
    12.    null;
    13. end;