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,c462e8ad74872a98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Question on modular types
Date: 1997/01/09
Message-ID: <E3qur5.7LM.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208693735
sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news)
x-nntp-posting-host: houdini.camb.inmet.com
references: <dewar.852779585@merv>
organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Dewar (dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu) wrote:

: Robert Duff said

:   "Convention to those who have read the RM, and understand that arithmetic
:    on modular types is always wrap-around arithmetic.  ;-)"


: I cannot find anywhere in the RM where it says that unary minus has
: wrap around arithmetic semantics, can you point me to the place where
: this is said.

Two places: 3.5.4(19) gives the general rule that anytime the result
of a predefined operator of a modular type is outside the base range of
the type, the result is reduced modulo the modulus of the type.  
The second is in a note, 4.5.4(3).

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com   http://www.inmet.com/~stt/
Intermetrics, Inc.  Cambridge, MA  USA