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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Interfacing enums with C
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:19:40 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lyd2byjgsz.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <lsqu8i$uco$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lylhqmkisq.fsf@pushface.org>
	<lsr0qm$559$1@speranza.aioe.org> <lsr0tk$559$2@speranza.aioe.org>
	<0JKdnW2RMsGvrGzO4p2dnAA@giganews.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="b814ca014269fd1fa21bc4c05b94dd9e";
	logging-data="7693"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/HMc8jH8rZRrow46AHyT+reeBxeujbl2M="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1EpRQ4Z39XagL7EzqA46R0oFcMc=
	sha1:uDQ2QgRKMUCTHEP/F6UFojF64Uw=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:21804
Date: 2014-08-18T10:19:40+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Peter Chapin <PChapin@vtc.vsc.edu> writes:

> On 2014-08-17 15:48, Victor Porton wrote:
>
>>> http://www.ada-auth.org/standards/12rm/html/RM-B-1.html 14/3 - 18
>>> does not say that enumeration types are eligible for convention C.
>>>
>>> So, in my opinion, RM does not require the following code to be
>>> compilable:
>>>
>>>    type Option_Type is (A, B)
>>>       with Convention => C;
>>>
>>>> And your first interfacing convention is much better. IMO.
>> 
>> BTW, I could propose enumeration type to be eligible for Convention C
>> in the next version of Ada RM!
>
> FWIW, GNAT does allow 'Convention => C' for enumeration types. So
> Simon's suggestion should work with GNAT if you are willing to make
> use of a GNAT extension.

Not sure it's precisely an _extension_ so much as a taking-up of an
implementation permission.