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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.28.122.11 with SMTP id v11mr371056wmc.24.1519936355461; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:32:35 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.14.124 with SMTP id n57mr150066otd.3.1519936355210; Thu, 01 Mar 2018 12:32:35 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.szaf.org!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!74.125.82.87.MISMATCH!n196no63848wmd.0!news-out.google.com!n14ni17wmi.0!nntp.google.com!w142no19768ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 12:32:34 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <421d1598-68d7-4d0b-b596-6e9c59cf865c@googlegroups.com> <877eqxe7u8.fsf@nightsong.com> <87muzsz6s2.fsf@nightsong.com> <628c3bba-6c0d-495b-be2f-e6ed3ef3418f@googlegroups.com> <40f38dfc-d456-4c7c-a65b-8990483af0a3@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <73e69dd3-3195-48c7-9b9b-f1a4bb7d6fde@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: 64-bit unsigned integer? From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 20:32:35 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50767 Date: 2018-03-01T12:32:34-08:00 List-Id: Dan'l Miller wrote: > > Why would they be allocated as the humanly-imaginable worst-case for us= age of the library?=20 Dmitry Kazakov wrote: > Because the upper bound is exactly that, the humanly-imaginable worst cas= e.=20 No, the upper bound of a bounded integer (or bounded string for that matter= ) is what I declared it to be in my own app-domain source code. The upper-= bound is not what other human beings on the planet would like to declare it= to be in their app-domain source code. Dan'l Miller wrote: > > Bounded textual strings are not allocated as the maximum universally-co= nceivable textual string length of megabytes long. Bounded simply means: = pick a modest upper bound and stick to it, say, 128-bit integer for bounded= bignum or 32-character string for bounded textual string.=20 Dmitry Kazakov wrote: > Why 128 and not 256 or 1056781?=20 Because I declared it to be a 128-bit bounded bignum at this place in my ap= p-domain source code for some register in my main processor, and I declared= some other 256-bit bounded bignums at some other place in my app-domain so= urce code for some other register in my GPU. And in this application, the = calculations on the 128-bit bounded bignums never utilize the 256-bit bound= ed bignums, and the calculations on the 256-bit bounded bignums never utili= ze the 128-bit bounded bignums; they are disjoint usages. Why does bounded= mean for you =E2=80=9Cone size fits all for all human beings on the planet= =E2=80=9D? Bounded means instead the fixed nonvarying size of this instanc= e as declared in each locality of app-domain source code, not in the librar= y (or in the language reference manual, for that matter) for all human bein= gs on the planet.