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,cd703a96ca51de6e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Matthew Heaney" <mheaney@on2.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 'Base
Date: 8 Dec 2005 11:24:43 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1134069883.535238.218050@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1134055303.758950.308680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <1134065313.469475.267400@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <dn9uv5$nmu$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.162.65.162
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1134069888 28021 127.0.0.1 (8 Dec 2005 19:24:48
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 19:24:48 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <dn9uv5$nmu$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1;
 .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.162.65.162;
   posting-account=Zl1UPAwAAADEsUSm1PMMiDjihtBlZUi_
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6775
Date: 2005-12-08T11:24:43-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Martin Dowie wrote:
>
> Sorry Matt - you must be ill or something as you're a wee bit "off base"
> with your answer to this one!
[snip]
> It isn't -42 .. 42 but the 'First .. 'Last or the underlying integer
> representation. In this case (with ObjectAda) -2147483648 to 2147483647.


I should have said that T'Base'Last is *at least* T'Last, of course it
can be larger.

However, this doesn't undermine the my point that you can only depend
on having the range guanteed by the RM, in this case -42 .. 42.

So yes it's true that your base type might include all of the values in
a 32 bit range, but that fact is irrelevant.  The range specified in
the RM is the only range that matters.