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: 103376,7e021fc0e7fc15a1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Al Christians Subject: Re: Ada 95 LRM Error? Date: 1999/01/28 Message-ID: <36B0A3CD.E8F5BDA3@easystreet.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 437998957 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <36AF6C22.896FC5B8@easystreet.com> <78oaj9$d9g@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com> <36AFC42A.57696F4D@easystreet.com> <78q2p6$e6v$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: news7.ispnews.com 917545215 206.103.35.3 (Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:40:15 EDT) Organization: Trillium Resources Corporation MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 12:40:15 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-01-28T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > > I don't see anyway the interface can be compatible with > odd non-standard COBOL stuff like this! > There's also the issue of minimum and maximums within the binary data types. A cobol pic S9(9) comp will generally be represented as 32-bit integer, and the corresponding Ada type will have digits 9. But the 32-bit integer can hold some 10-digit values. IDK which Cobol compilers do how much to prevent these from actually existing -- I suppose it depends on how much run-time type checking is turned on in the programs. I assume that these values, if they exist, should cause an error of some kind if Interfaces.Cobol comes across them. Al