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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,56250291936154a0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: OS Bindings (was: Where is the elusive jump command?)
Date: 2000/04/09
Message-ID: <8cp23c$4gp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 608594326
References: <38D771CA.D41AF9B5@port.ac.uk> <wcczorkm4tl.fsf@world.std.com>
 <wyVD4.17218$624.1463963@news.flash.net> <8bq7ku$mc8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <mp2E4.17360$624.1487865@news.flash.net> <38E0E723.C39C392@quadruscorp.com>
 <8brfm4$4uc$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8brn4k$p6i$1@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
 <8brrpj$i04$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <38E312F8.78883ACB@icn.siemens.de>
 <8c4rvf$d9k$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <umqvh1wnaad.fsf@gong2.clustra.com>
 <2000Apr5.070127.1@eisner> <umq8zyrmzgp.fsf@gong2.clustra.com>
 <2000Apr6.081305.1@eisner> <8ci6vf$r5a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8ck638$krs3@ftp.kvaerner.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x23.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Apr 09 04:48:48 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8ck638$krs3@ftp.kvaerner.com>,
  "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> wrote:
> A good example of this is the definitions in the interfaces.C.
> The unsigned types are really useless and undermines the type
> safety we should expect from Ada. These definitions fails
> completely to capture the spirit of the usage in C.

I am completely mystefied by the above, it includes a number
of very curious assertions, with absolutely no indication of
the strange theory that must underlie these assertions. From
where I see things, there is no undermining of type safety in
these declarations, and they capture the semantics of C
unsigned types perfectly.

> The modular types should have been named something like
> unsigned_<type>_flags or something to that effect. Then the
> purpose and meaning would be clear and w would avoid the
> bungle which is the present standard.

Saying something is a bungle without giving us the slightest
idea of why you think that is not constructive. Modular types
are called modular types simply because they have modular
arithmetic semantics, like the unsigned types in C, but more
general, and the name captures this perfectly. Yes, one
possible use is to use them for flags, but this is actually
by NO means the main or even a very common use of modular types.

> It anoys me no end that I did not catch this during the review
> process. I really should have noticed.

I have no idea what you think you failed to notice and did not
catch, please explain.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.