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: 103376,233f0e04e488a4a2
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: gwinn@ma.ultranet.com (Joe Gwinn)
Subject: Re: Size of 0..255 is not 8 bits?
Date: 1998/05/15
Message-ID: <gwinn-1505982152250001@d181.dial-1.cmb.ma.ultra.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 353684903
References: <355A436E.11F76529@cl.cam.ac.uk>
 <matthew_heaney-ya023680001305982154260001@news.ni.net>
 <355AEA1D.6C292667@cl.cam.ac.uk> <dewar.895191407@merv>
X-Ultra-Time: 16 May 1998 01:49:21 GMT
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ultra.net
Organization: Gwinn Instruments
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-05-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.895191407@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
> Size causes so much confusion among those who don't understand it clearly,
> that I  often find that when the code is displayed it does not at all
> correspond to the original decsription.
> does not 
> clearly correspond to the description or conclusions that have
> been published!
> 
> It is interesting that a significant portion of our support activities
> revolves around issues with size and other representation clauses,
> where programmers have written implementation dependent code and
> not realized that they were doing so. We spend quite a bit of time
> explaining the problem and helping to figure out how to most easily
> fix it.

If the same problems and misunderstandings keep arising, perhaps this is a
good area to write some FAQ items about.  

Joe Gwinn