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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1de1981df403322c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-12 07:00:44 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsgate.cistron.nl!news.cambrium.nl!news.cambrium.nl!news.cambrium.nl!newsfeed.kabelfoon.nl!195.129.110.21.MISMATCH!bnewsfeed00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:00:22 -0500
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: New limited range type?
References: <bogf20$q1$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <1068220677.950551@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <boggo8$3us$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <1068224385.790621@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <jsatob.i6f.ln@skymaster>
In-Reply-To: <jsatob.i6f.ln@skymaster>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Organization: KBC Financial Products
Message-ID: <1068649222.351052@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10
X-Trace: 1068649222  1978 204.253.250.10
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2420
Date: 2003-11-12T10:00:22-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
> Nope.
> Ada does not define "evaluation order", but it does define associativity.
> A+B-C is definitely (A+B) - C

But in floating arithmetic, A + B - C may produce the numerically
correct result even if A + B by itself would overflow. Would this
need to be changed for saturating arithmetic? If A + B would saturate
but A + B - C (in ordinary arithmetic) would not, should the result
be required to be UPPER_LIMIT - C?