Re: not X'Length

[Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>]

Points taken.

Adam Beneschan wrote:
> Your original post said something about expecting the compiler to
> complain about "not" being applied to a universal integer.  I'm not
> quite sure what your intent was, but applying "not" to a universal
> integer is quite legitimate where modular types are concerned.

I was just wondering whether a compiler could know that provided
<R> is statically an integer type and <L> of a "perfectly normal
magic type", then let <R> have more weight in biasing the diagnostic
of <L> IN <R> so have the compiler consider the genesis of the latter.
But I will stop speculating about things behind the compiler's walls
and let the makers do other work undisturbed.

> Something like
>
>    (Z and not 1)
> 
> is a good way to clear a bit in Z, if Z's type is a modular type.

I guess as a matter of personal preference I'd choose (Z and not 2#1#)
and (not Unsigned_8'(X'Length-1)) or similar. OK, enough said.