Re: AI12-0218: What is the portable representation clause for processing IETF packets on little-endian machines?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message 
news:lypo21ic5j.fsf@pushface.org...
> "Jeffrey R. Carter" <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org> writes:
>
>> On 05/11/2018 11:39 PM, Simon Wright wrote:
>>>
>>> whereas Ada2012 says
>>>
>>>      "To convert a record from one representation to another, two
>>>      record types with a common ancestor type need to be declared,
>>>      with no inherited subprograms."
>>>
>>> which seems to require _three_ types.
>>
>> The example in 13.6 shows this with only 2 types. This is because a
>> type is defined to be its own ancestor (ARM 3.4.1).
>
> I saw the example. I stand by my statement that it's confusing.
>
> Perhaps there needs to be a way to mark a language usage as
> domain-specific rather than natural; in English, I am not my own
> ancestor (or descendant).

That's easy compared to "part" (also a technical term, also includes the 
entire item, also gets confused all the time, even by people who know 
better).

If a word in the RM is more than 6 characters or so, assume it is a 
technical term and look it up; only assume the English meaning if it isn't 
found when looking it up. (And you still get caught by "part", "named", and 
others.) We try hard to make the technical terms at least someone intuitive, 
but it's not possible to do that completely (else a technical term would not 
be needed).

Modern ISO standards are supposed to have a glossary of all defined 
technical terms; adding one of those for Ada would take a years work 
(because a lot of the definitions are folded into other text), and there are 
a LOT of them.

                      Randy.