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: 103376,4afa25b13bea6bcc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Chris Morgan Subject: Re: Two dimensional arrays: help Date: 1998/01/06 Message-ID: <874t3hnwv4.fsf@ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 313334184 Sender: cm@mihalis References: <34B0C8A6.B19098B6@a01-unix.gsyc.inf.uc3m.es> <68qqlp$25v@top.mitre.org> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Jan 06 10:57:17 AM CST 1998 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-01-06T10:57:17-06:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > I know of no "loss of efficiency introduced into unsigned > numbers between the rationale and the manual", you should elaborate. > Certainly the rules in the manual are quite clear, and I see no basis > at all for the claim that it is impossible to know the rules about > unsigned numbers without examples. I for one clearly remember Michael complaining that the modular types in Ada95 don't behave the way the Rationale implied and you responding that the Rationale is wrong. Perhaps we can all agree that the most useless material for learning from possible is wrong examples! Chris -- Chris Morgan "I'm considering throwing myself out of the window. It wouldn't do me much damage because we're on the ground floor, but it might make for a bit of variety." - Lizzy Bryant