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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-03-17 05:15:29 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!easynews!news-xfer2.newshosting.com!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.esat.net!nslave.kpnqwest.net!nloc.kpnqwest.net!nmaster.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Nick Williams" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: ARG Urgent Problems (was: labeling) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Organization: Ye 'Ol Disorganized NNTPCache groupie Message-ID: <1016370675.163940@ananke.eclipse.net.uk> Cache-Post-Path: ananke.eclipse.net.uk!unknown@213-152-38-147.dsl.eclipse.net.uk X-Cache: nntpcache 2.4.0b5 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 13:11:19 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.104.129.36 X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@kpnqwest.net X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 1016370679 212.104.129.36 (Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:11:19 MET) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002 14:11:19 MET Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:21362 Date: 2002-03-17T13:11:19+00:00 List-Id: What exactly do you mean by 'unsigned integers and not just the positive part of integers'? If you want to model unsigned integers the same way that C models them, then use modular types, surely? Nick. "Tarjei T. Jensen" wrote in message news:a7240i$rh416@news.kvaerner.com... > Larry Kilgallen wrote: > > Christoph Grein writes: > > > > > The ARG really has enough urgent problems to solve, and I bey they are > > > reluctant to handle any such weird proposals. > > > > Out of curiosity, what are some of the "urgent problems" ? > > They could get us unsigned integers and not just the positive part of > integers. By unsigned I mean unsigned with runtime checking. > > Quoting C unsigned as a reason for not having real unsigned is pretty bogus > because C integers seems to wrap very well. > > We don't want to abandon runtime checks on integers just because C does not > do any checking.