I agree,

if in this situation  (B + C) saturates

but B + (C - D) does not then it wouldn't saturate in the end result However

B + C - D would saturate at the B + C part of the operation

-- 
"To err is human.  To really screw up, you need C++!"

St�phane Richard
"Ada World" Webmaster
http://www.adaworld.com


"Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:boggo8$3us$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1068220677.950551@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> > Martin Dowie wrote:
> > > I'd like to be able to declare integer/float/fixed/decimal types that
> are
> > > limited, at both ends, and never raise exceptions
> >
> > This is generally called saturating arithmetic, and you are
> > far from the first to request it.
>
> Well, at least I'm not asking for anything _completely_ stupid then! :-)
>
>
> > I belive the difficulty
> > lies in assigning meaning to expressions and intermediate
> > results. What if you say A := B + C - D, with values such
> > that (B + C) saturates but B + (C - D) does not?
>
> Standard operator precedent rules should apply - I can't see
> that as being outragous?
>
>
>
>