Re: Enumeration representation clause surprise.

[christoph.grein@eurocopter.com]

On 12 Jun., 03:16, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
> >There's a "Note" in RM13.4(11/1) that says "Unchecked_Conversion
> >may be used to query the internal codes used for an enumeration type".
>
Tom wrote:

>    That, along with 13.4(7) "An enumeration representation clause
> specifies the coding aspect of representation.  The coding consists of the
> internal code for each enumeration literal, ..."  sure sounds to me like
> an Unchecked_Conversion should return the internal code set by the
> enumeration representation clause, ie, the number 1 or number 2 in this
> case.  The fact the variable in question is in a record shouldn't make
> that false.

This is a non sequitur.

type My_Record is record
  I: My_Int;
end record;

for My_Record use record
  I at 0 range 0 .. 0;
end record;

Also in this case an Unchecked_Conversion gives different results for
I declared as a record component or by itself.

But I support the other reasons why the actual aspect clause should
possibly be rejected.