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-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4751d44ff54a2c2c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-04 18:48:34 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: 64-bit integers in Ada
Date: 4 Aug 2002 18:48:34 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0208041748.3feb353f@posting.google.com>
References: <3CE3978F.6070704@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net>
 <yeceldkpm34.fsf@king.cts.com> <wcc65ywhw3s.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <ai8pf9$fip$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <slrnakhqa5.ok.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <aibbr8$4ie$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <slrnakkdbb.ou.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <aie0vt$p6g$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <5ee5b646.0208030424.39703482@posting.google.com>
 <3D4C2805.62563584@adaworks.com>
 <5ee5b646.0208040607.ebb6909@posting.googOrganization: LJK Software
 <PG2KS5+doDWm@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.224.78.5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1028512114 13053 127.0.0.1 (5 Aug 2002 01:48:34
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Aug 2002 01:48:34 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27683
Date: 2002-08-05T01:48:34+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<PG2KS5+doDWm@eisner.encompasserve.org>...
> 	2. This consideration is vastly outweighed by a 
>          body of more important items that deserve their
>          intention.
           ^^^^^^^^^
Nice typo, I assume you mean attention :-)

Actually, this kind of short range thinking (sorry I am too
busy to learn how to do things right, I have too much to
worry about) is really inappropriate to the Ada world and
the world of serious software engineering. I can't tell you
how many projects have a heck of a time porting legacy code
because programmers have not given attention to the issue of writing
portable code earlier on. Note that portable
code is code that is easily able to be ported. That does
NOT mean having stupid rules like "no use of unchecked
conversion". What it does mean is careful encapsulation
of dependencies, and avoidance of gratuitous non-portabilities (such
as using type Standard.Integer :-)