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,b47b15fda2aeb0b2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada Standard Date: 1996/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178781473 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <50aao3$3r88@news-s01.ny.us.ibm.net> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article <50jk0f$krh@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, > Richard A. O'Keefe wrote: > >bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > >>Another example is: You can't write a function that takes a parameter of > >>"any integer type". This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do > > > >Wearing my Lisp hat: only because Ada doesn't actually support integers, > >but a machine-dependent set of machine-dependent small bounded integers. > > That seems like an orthogonal issue. One could imagine a language like > Ada, where the potential range of integers was essentially infinite, but > the type model would still be the same. Hmmm, actually Ada does support that, just not for "regular" types. I mean universal_integer is pretty much just that, right? Of course, that's not particularly useful either... /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com