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: 103376,60fe876e7675f11
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.135.231 with SMTP id pv7mr14719815pbb.8.1328638107424;
        Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:08:27 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni271301pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!d15g2000yqg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Weird behavior with modular type
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 10:06:55 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <32c99412-2c88-4438-a955-de19a7f034a2@d15g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.v9bjzvhzule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <jgro6r$m6n$1@adenine.netfront.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1328638107 31251 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2012 18:08:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 18:08:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: d15g2000yqg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-02-07T10:06:55-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Feb 7, 9:49 am, Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter....@spam.not.acm.org>
wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 10:24 AM, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57) wrote:
>  >
>
> > Seems in the first case, the left-side of "E < 10 ** I" has a modulo ap=
plied, or
> > else, I see no way to explain the result, "FALSE". But why would this m=
odulo be
> > applied with a subtype of Natural and not with an Universal_Integer?
>
> Seems to me in both cases the expression on the right of "<" is
> Universal_Integer. What compiler message did you get?

If the argument on the right of "<" is a *static* Universal_Integer
whose value is larger than 255, then an error message should be
generated (4.9(35)).  Here, the expression is not static, so there
shouldn't be an error; as I mentioned earlier, GNAT does give an error
which appears to me to be a compiler bug.

                           -- Adam