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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,72d0d0a56877b2ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-09-25 05:40:45 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!news.bu.edu!inmet!dsd!stt From: stt@dsd.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Ada83 or DEC Ada: Feature or bug? Message-ID: Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. References: <360ecv$kq1@hacker.demon.co.uk> Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 12:32:01 GMT Date: 1994-09-25T12:32:01+00:00 List-Id: In article <360ecv$kq1@hacker.demon.co.uk>, Stephen M. Youndt wrote: >Is it a feature of Ada83 or DEC Ada that makes it impossible to work with >unsigned values? MAX_INT always bites back with CONSTRAINT_ERROR when I try >to do any real work with unsigned 32bit values (i.e. SYSTEM.UNSIGNED_LONGWORD). >Both I and my coworkers find this terribly annoying. Is this part of Ada83 >or a DEC Ada peculiarity? Ada 83 only provided for signed integers. However, many Ada 83 vendors have provided special packages to circumvent this problem. Apparently DEC did not go all the way in supporting them. > ... If Ada83, will it be fixed in 9X? In Ada 9X, there are unsigned integers, called "modular integers," which allow the user to specify the wrap-around point. To get a 32-bit unsigned integer, you would declare it as: type Unsigned_32 is mod 2**32; > ... >Stephen M. Youndt * Inet: steve@hacker.demon.co.uk * CIS: 73121,3407 > * Tel: +44 242 863 028 * S. Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com Ada 9X Mapping/Revision Team Intermetrics, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02138