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: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Question on modular types
Date: 1997/01/09
Message-ID: <E3qx5z.IHJ@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 208703213
references: <01bbfa96$66d516a0$8d2d5c8b@jerryware>
 <01bbfbf8$4fda7a40$5f2d5c8b@jerryware> <E3LotB.9J9@world.std.com>
 <dewar.852779585@merv>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.852779585@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>iRobert Duff said
>
>"Convention to those who have read the RM, and understand that arithmetic
            ^al
>on modular types is always wrap-around arithmetic.  ;-)"

By the way, the above smiley was meant to imply some sympathy for the
earlier poster's view, that calling wrap-around arithmetic
"conventional" is obfuscatory.  It wasn't intended as an admonishment to
RTFM.

>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.

3.5.4(19).

- Bob