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: 103376,1cf653444208df72 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-10 08:59:54 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!sjc-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-read.news.verio.net.POSTED!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20011010085528.Q21444-100000@shell5.ba.best.com> References: <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bbd6287.346843109@news.cis.dfn.de> <9pkco7$9qe1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bc15a16.1317281@news.cis.dfn.de> <9ps9uu$a2g1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3BC2FD54.69BA446D@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <9pv54d$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bc40a3f.4768875@news.cis.dfn.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:59:53 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.184.139.136 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verio.net X-Trace: sea-read.news.verio.net 1002729593 206.184.139.136 (Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:59:53 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:59:53 GMT Organization: Verio Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14166 Date: 2001-10-10T15:59:53+00:00 List-Id: On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > * Dmitry Kazakov wrote: > >1. If you mean that Ada has no type to represent the whole set of all > >integers, yes it is true. [as well as it is for all other languages > >designed for finite discrete machines] > > man Haskell. (or any other lazy evaluation language with unlimited arithmetics) This issue is not related to lazy evaluation. Haskell's Integer is a plain old arbitrary precision integer, just like the ones provided by C, Ada, and OCaml libraries. I'm pretty sure that some versions of SML (a strict language) use a similar approach for the default integer type. This is one of those few cases where I think the "safe" choice (arbitrary precision integers) is the wrong default. -- Brian