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,ffdd4d59cbfb4caf
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Numerics questions for the experts
Date: 1997/09/05
Message-ID: <mheaney-ya023680000509972116500001@news.ni.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 270153102
References: <dewar.872745692@merv> <EFoIvv.JtA.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
 <dewar.873149493@merv> <mheaney-ya023680000209972104030001@news.ni.net>
 <dewar.873504953@merv>
Organization: Estormza Software
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.873504953@merv>, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:


>      For
>       other Component_Sizes (if supported), the array should contain no
>       gaps between components when packing is also specified; the
>       implementation should forbid this combination in cases where it
>       cannot support a no-gaps representation.

That about explains it.  I wasn't aware that packing and component_size
clauses were intended to be used together.  I assumed that by specifying
the component size to be 3, that that meant the component size should be 3. 
How naive of me!

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Heaney
Software Development Consultant
<mailto:matthew_heaney@acm.org>
(818) 985-1271