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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,184737148aef02ac
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com
Subject: Re: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity
Date: 1999/01/28
Message-ID: <78q2ve$e8q$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 437829043
References: <369E14CA.90715966@lmco.com>
 <F5KMxx.3L8.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <78od6d$b4t$2@plug.news.pipex.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Jan 28 16:24:26 1999 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-01-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <78od6d$b4t$2@plug.news.pipex.net>,
  "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, this is legal, but Tucker's explanation is not
> precisely right.

<<completely different analysis, with entirely different
legality consequences -- would make some programs legal
where Tucker's approach would make them illegal>> snipped

Brave fellow to be sure you know this stuff better than
Tuck :-)

I agree with Tuck's analysis (and so does GNAT :-)

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own