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: 103376,45a9122ddf5fcf5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Rules for Representation of Subtypes
Date: 1996/09/29
Message-ID: <dewar.844014110@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 186052165
references: <dewar.843920464@schonberg> <DyGy7y.Hy5@world.std.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-09-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob Duff said

"In article <dewar.843920464@schonberg>,
Robert Dewar <dewar@schonberg.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
I wrote:
>It should."
And Robert replied:
>I am completely puzzled, you can specify the size of types and the size of
>objects, what on earth woul it mean to specify Storage_Size for an array
>(as opposed to specifying the type or object size for the array).

The complaint was that Ada measures everythng in bits, and why can't you
specify sizes in bytes, or storage units, or whatever, which is much
more convenient in many cases.  That's what I was saying "It should" to.

- Bob"


Ah, OK, fine, but the use of Storage_Size is most misleading, since this
does not refer to the space in storage units taken up by a value of the
type!

I absolutely agree that this is a missing capability, and if you look back
at one of my previous messages, you will see that I suggested the
attribute "Size_In_Storage_Units for this purpose. (note that
Max_Size_In_Storage_Units is not right, because it can include
templates, bounds etc, but for many types they will be the same).
dp