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: 2000/04/12
Message-ID: <8d2dq9$2le$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 610289667
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><8cp23c$4gp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <8csjs8$o2p3@ftp.kvaerner.com><8d0su8$bqt$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <wccitxnbfak.fsf@world.std.com> <8d20bq$o2p4@ftp.kvaerner.com>
 <wccg0srbbc4.fsf@world.std.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x39.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Apr 12 18:04:07 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-04-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <wccg0srbbc4.fsf@world.std.com>,
  Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> wrote:
> If I made the rules, there would be no Max_Int.


That may be OK, multiple precision integers can be useful,
so long as you do not go berserk and require that I be
able to use them for case indexes, subscripts, entryu
family indexes, loop variables, etc.

It is this kind of silly requirement that caused many Ada
compilers not to even support 64-bit integers when they
could have done so easily.

The Ada 83 attitude was

"if you implement 64-bit integer arithmetic, you MUST allow
all the above silly things, but it is absolutely FINE to not
implement 64-bit integer arithmetic at all."

I am not sure whether we fixed this properly in Ada 95.

In the case of GNAT, we allow 64-bit integer arithmetic
everywhere, and it would be very easy to allow larger
arithmetic, provided it is clear we do not have to allow
it in silly contexts.




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