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!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!newsfeed.xs3.de!io.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!franka.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED.rrsoftware.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Examining individual bytes of an integer
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 16:18:13 -0500
Organization: JSA Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <pqatam$ukb$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
References: <9d90fa3e-f800-4086-bf97-a65474a8140a@googlegroups.com>
 <pq0706$60k$1@dont-email.me> <g2hqooFq0usU1@mid.individual.net>
 <4ddbc9bf-0e2e-466d-8238-d8f709b985e1@googlegroups.com>
 <g2k5fbF9thnU1@mid.individual.net> <pq2sm7$in8$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <35f53cd9-4979-49b8-a5df-2c1cf0764507@googlegroups.com>
 <pq5out$fu2$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
 <39be8a25-cc06-4db4-9481-7f484077522d@googlegroups.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2018 21:18:14 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: franka.jacob-sparre.dk;
 posting-host="rrsoftware.com:24.196.82.226";
	logging-data="31371"; mail-complaints-to="news@jacob-sparre.dk"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.7246
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:54639
Date: 2018-10-18T16:18:13-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"AdaMagica" <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de> wrote in message 
news:39be8a25-cc06-4db4-9481-7f484077522d@googlegroups.com...
...
>There remains the other statement:
>"By reasonable induction  :-)  the second, third, etc. array elements
>follow in increasing address order. But not _guaranteed_, I agree."
>
>I still claim that this has too be true (of course with a grain of salt for 
>packead arrays).

I agree, it would make indexing calculations really expensive if it isn't 
true. And I don't see a compiler author doing that on purpose. Packed arrays 
are a different kettle of fish, of course.

                                         Randy.