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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6e70c13232dc4a26 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: john@assen.demon.co.uk (John McCabe) Subject: Re: logarithms on ada Date: 1997/03/07 Message-ID: <33205b8c.1147493@news.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 223833596 X-NNTP-Posting-Host: assen.demon.co.uk References: <5fcqrs$ius@panther.Gsu.EDU> <331c6ce7.856445@news.demon.co.uk> Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-03-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >JOhn McCabe said > ><documentation to find it. > >TLD Ada for example provides a "math" package you need to with which >defines log and log10 functions for various types.>> > >This comment is appropriate for Ada 83, but not for Ada 95, where the log >function is standardized, and available in all Ada 95 compilers. > You're quite correct, but your comment appears inappropriate to the original question. Look at it from this point of view; logarithms are defined as part of the Ada (1995) language and *are* listed in the Ada 95 Reference Manual. The original question poser must therefore either be blind or stupid (or both) to have missed it, yes? On the other hand, we could consider that the context in which the question was raised was that of the Ada (1983) language. This would, in fact, be a very reasonable assumption given that: 1) The Ada Language (and RM) from 1983 does not define a Log function and 2) Most people (despite what you would like to believe) still use the 1983 definition of the Ada language. The other option of course is to make no assumptions (as in Tom Moran's posting) and ask what version is being used! Best Regards John McCabe