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: 109fba,cd8ed9115942852f
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b92b95c9b5585075
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gid4f1905883f,gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder1-2.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder2-2.proxad.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:43:46 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:5.0) Gecko/20110624 Thunderbird/5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why use C++?
References: <fb9f787c-af06-427a-82b6-b0684e8dcbc5@s2g2000vby.googlegroups.com>
 <j1kaj8$dge$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <1e292299-2cbe-4443-86f3-b19b8af50fff@c29g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
 <j1tha5$11q5$1@adenine.netfront.net>
 <1fd0cc9b-859d-428e-b68a-11e34de84225@gz10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <9ag33sFmuaU1@mid.individual.net> <j1v17b$h98$1@munin.nbi.dk>
 <1d8wyhvpcmpkd.ggiui9vebmtl.dlg@40tude.net> <j203cu$q97$1@dont-email.me>
 <150vz10ihvb5a.1lysmewa1muz4$.dlg@40tude.net> <j20cif$dr6$1@dont-email.me>
In-Reply-To: <j20cif$dr6$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4e43c072$0$6625$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Aug 2011 13:43:46 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: b29eb33c.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=U]lQ3ERhOHXFm0Y?OE@2^XA9EHlD;3YcR4Fo<]lROoRQ8kF<OcfhCO[@:>SDEfdW7Vnc\616M64>ZLh>_cHTX3j]M11eQ>UHP]R
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.c++:82810 comp.lang.ada:20533
Date: 2011-08-11T13:43:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 11.08.11 12:57, Jed wrote:

> You have to build those types though based upon the built-in ones, yes? 
> If so, aren't modular, wrapping and overflow-checked equally good for 
> something and all worthy of being in a language? Of course there is 
> signed, unsigned and the different bit widths as candidates also. And are 
> not those built-ins good to use "raw" in many cases? Are you suggesting 
> that a language have NO types? There is assembly language for that (and 
> the instruction set pretty much dictates what types you have to work with 
> at that level). 

I like means to construct discrete types, for example, from
items expressible in the language without explicitly referring
to some built-in named type.  Let literals 0 and 15 be known to the
compiler.  Let the programmer say,
  "I want a ranking system, and I want the type for that system
to have values {0, ..., 15}. Plus I need the following operations,
..., but not these ..., and my "-"/'Pred function should be saturating
(if there should be operator overloading)."

In this request, does the programmer need to refer to int, or uint16_t,
or Ada's Natural, or anything for that?

- georg