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: 103376,514627f9964b6e38
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Using the GNAT defined attribute: 'Enum_Rep
Date: 1997/09/11
Message-ID: <dewar.873981179@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271643735
References: <97090912331704@psavax.pwfl.com>
 <3415BF12.22A5@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Wes

<<So if you know your code won't be used under Ada-83, you can depend
on the default.>>

The comment about Ada 83 here is redundant except for academic language
lawyer purposes. All Ada 83 compilers ever written (and all those that
you can imagine being written), of course default to the standard
representation. The Ada 95 rule is merely stating an obvious, but
not explicitly stated, requirement.

Note carefully that in the case of enumeration representation types
declared in predefined units, you cannot count on any default
representation, since conceptually (and perhaps actually), there
may be enumeration representation clauses in private parts. One
would for example, not be at all surprised to see variations in
some cases of predefined enumeration types.