From: "Adam Beneschan" <adam@irvine.com>
Subject: Re: Universal float or not - who's right ?
Date: 11 Sep 2006 12:44:06 -0700
Date: 2006-09-11T12:44:06-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1158003846.013059.75150@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: UK6dnTg4_IC6h5_YnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@megapath.net
Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Gautier" <gautier@fakeaddress.nil> wrote in message
> news:45016cb7$1_4@news.bluewin.ch...
> ...
> > d: constant FF.FFLoat:= 2.0**4;
> > -- Fails on compiler A,B,C
> > -- "**" is not visible, an "use FF;" is missing
> >
> > package FPe is new P(FF.FFLoat,2.0**4);
> > -- ** A,B,C differ:
> > -- Passes on C: (2.0**4) probably taken as universal float
> > -- Fails on compiler A,B: same reason as for constant d
>
> Compiler C is wrong, the expression resolution for D and the parameter of
> FPe should be the same. The short reason is that expressions can only have a
> universal type if they are in a context that allows one (such as a named
> number); otherwise *operators* (as opposed to literals) must have the
> correct type. Adam explains why in detail.
You mean I got it right? Yay!!
-- Adam
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-09-11 19:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-09-08 13:14 Universal float or not - who's right ? Gautier
2006-09-08 17:13 ` Adam Beneschan
2006-09-09 1:35 ` Randy Brukardt
2006-09-11 19:44 ` Adam Beneschan [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox