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,f3f9104dada53163
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: An interesting quote on Java and C++
Date: 1997/09/19
Message-ID: <EGrE3K.Euv@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 273817182
References: <5ujjvq$t4s@drn.zippo.com> <dewar.873989964@merv>
 <EGEq96.2H6@world.std.com> <34218E68.63D5@gsg.eds.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <34218E68.63D5@gsg.eds.com>,
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <nospam@gsg.eds.com> wrote:
>Ada, of course, takes a much less machine-dependent definition of the 
>world; you define the precision of your variables in terms of the 
>application, not in terms of the word size of your computer or virtual 
>machine.

This is basically good, but it still bothers me that:

    type T is range 0..2_000_000_000;
    X, Y: T := T'Last;
    Z: T := (X + Y) / 2;

will typically behave differently on a 32-bit machine than on a 36-bit
machine.

- Bob