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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f712c3cc98e7f25
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed01.chello.at!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 10:15:16 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <see.reply.to@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsho+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080502)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: not X'Length
References: <482c0030$0$7542$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 	<954e4cd2-11a9-420b-85c4-7741c429e1b2@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
 	<482ca195$0$6788$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
 <717bf87e-b8b6-4129-8051-7bd45cf2f7b2@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <717bf87e-b8b6-4129-8051-7bd45cf2f7b2@a9g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <482d4294$0$6786$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2008 10:15:16 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32132afc.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=ighT9XLE=B7Tia]Ho99G50A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR18kF<OcfhCO;jQU^3I9GUa:PCY\c7>ejV8_48DSdgB7?>2N=[h^lSEf2
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:93
Date: 2008-05-16T10:15:16+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.