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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d2c21e8238e985b5
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-29 16:36:12 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Extended modal types
Date: 29 May 2002 16:36:12 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205291536.7ab80026@posting.google.com>
References: <3CEDFF90.B94D7E32@yahoo.com> <3CF4F1A8.6A491F3@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1022715372 29808 127.0.0.1 (29 May 2002 23:36:12
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 29 May 2002 23:36:12 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24969
Date: 2002-05-29T23:36:12+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Anatoly Chernyshev <rhezusfactor@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3CF4F1A8.6A491F3@yahoo.com>...
> Well, this post got a surprising response, so I have to make some
> explanation on that.
> First, I beg your pardon for probable confusing of the terms. I did not
> think of modular types as a computer scientist, instead I just thought of
> some �cyclical� integer type, which will never overflow even being added
> with an �out of range� number. I found this type should mostly be the
> modular alike.

So please read my post carefully and explain why ordinary
modular types do not meet this need perfectly well?