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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6339fea48a1b8cda
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: christoph.grein@eurocopter.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Enumeration representation clause surprise.
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:27:45 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <e0ceaf30-7983-4808-8768-edec57ee4783@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com>
References: <48502e38$0$23821$4f793bc4@news.tdc.fi>
 <88GdnYlGypeb5M3VnZ2dnUVZ_hzinZ2d@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.156.44.178
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1213259266 25229 127.0.0.1 (12 Jun 2008 08:27:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:27:46 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.156.44.178;
	posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET
	CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.1 webwasher (Webwasher 6.7.0.3295)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:668
Date: 2008-06-12T01:27:45-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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:

> =A0 =A0That, along with 13.4(7) "An enumeration representation clause
> specifies the coding aspect of representation. =A0The coding consists of t=
he
> internal code for each enumeration literal, ..." =A0sure 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. =A0The 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.