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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.70.92.137 with SMTP id cm9mr26390883pdb.4.1411844843353;
 Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.182.158.68 with SMTP id ws4mr3675obb.10.1411844843183; Sat,
 27 Sep 2014 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!h15no8191901igd.0!news-out.google.com!rp1ni712igb.0!nntp.google.com!h15no8191880igd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <e5ed51a5-7689-4638-a72f-d069773e40df@googlegroups.com>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=68.4.154.23;
 posting-account=KSa2aQoAAACOxnC0usBJYX8NE3x3a1Xq
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.4.154.23
References: <VdhE7.52658$a14.6286550@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>
 <mailman.1004665206.24953.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <d54edd63-641a-4aaa-888d-4967c0b30bb1@googlegroups.com>
 <c8lj3gFaqrfU1@mid.individual.net>
 <98f0066e-4b5c-4b00-b811-dcbb13ed0fcf@googlegroups.com>
 <e77a7c4b-8bf3-4da7-bcc9-ed9eb28b5c3a@googlegroups.com>
 <d56f7d1e-dfab-4ba5-ae13-6efa2606d915@googlegroups.com>
 <c8o75iFobkU1@mid.individual.net>
 <e5ed51a5-7689-4638-a72f-d069773e40df@googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <927a3c75-ce64-4035-96dd-09622a8ebb79@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Integers and Mathematical Correctness
From: Adam Beneschan <adambeneschan@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:07:23 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:189193
Date: 2014-09-27T12:07:23-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:54:33 AM UTC-7, Adam Beneschan wrote:

> Well, it should be 7/4 as Jeff pointed out, but yes, that's what I'd expe=
ct as long as there are no versions of "+" that take one Integer and one Ra=
tional parameter and return Rational.  If there is a visible "+" like that,=
 the program would be rejected as ambiguous.  But 0 (or 0/1 or any Rational=
 number representing 0) is not a possible result.

I suppose I should clarify: 0 is not a possible result if we assume that th=
e "/" and "+" operations in Rational are implemented correctly ;) ;) ;)

                             -- Adam