Re: Extended modal types

[Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>]

"Frank J. Lhota" <NOSPAM.FrankLho@rcn.com> writes:

> I think the real issue here is that for moduli other than powers of 2, e.g.
>
>     type r is mod 446;
>
> the bitwise operations "and", "or", and "not" simply do not have any
> intuitive meaning. It may very well have been preferable for these
> operations to be undefined for mod 446.

You can't do that without violating the generic contract model.

(IMHO, modular types whose modular type whose modulus is not a power
of two should have been avoided altogether.)