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=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,db88d0444fafe8eb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Surprise in array concatenation Date: 24 Sep 2005 20:20:27 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <1125544603.561847.32140@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <14muavojz308w.1ouv7xin79rqu$.dlg@40tude.net> <87fyspgqrm.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1127607627 670 192.74.137.71 (25 Sep 2005 00:20:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Sep 2005 00:20:27 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5122 Date: 2005-09-24T20:20:27-04:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" writes: > wrote in message > news:zSFTe.4078$wk6.1150@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com... > > I recall a project where an Ada newbie, having learned about enumerated > > types, created one enumerated type that was three pages long. That is, > > the number of values in the type was so great that it took three pages > > of 11 X 14 standard printer paper to contain it. > > Hey, I resemble that remark! > > The intermediate code definition for Janus/Ada includes an enumeration of > 300 or so operations. The definition covers several pages (it has comments). > That's used as the discriminant on a giant variant record that covers more > than 6 pages. No newbies here. :-) > > It's very useful for this to be an enumeration; when new operations are > added, the case statements in the optimizer and elsewhere fail to compile > until they've been updated with the new operations. That's a short term > pain, but it avoids a lot of problems in the long run (because the > operations were added considering impacts, rather than either forgotten or > defaulted to something that's likely to be wrong). > > And, yes, Bob, it's not unusual to make arrays of (parts) of this type. You mean indexed by, not "of", I think. I don't doubt it! But I suspect you don't create very many unconstrained arrays indexed by (parts of) this type. And not empty arrays thereof. True? I agree with you that there's nothing necessarily wrong with an enumeration of hundreds. And I agree that the full-coverage rule for Ada case statements is very cool. - Bob