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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4751d44ff54a2c2c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-02 23:20:16 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!eusc.inter.net!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: 64-bit integers in Ada Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:21:01 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CE3978F.6070704@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> <3D46DC69.7C291297@adaworks.com> <5ee5b646.0207301613.5b59616c@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1028294461 25808 136.170.200.133 (2 Aug 2002 13:21:01 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 2 Aug 2002 13:21:01 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27642 Date: 2002-08-02T13:21:01+00:00 List-Id: Maybe we're just talking at cross-purposes here. I certainly don't object to support for user defined ranges/sizes that would be smaller than 16 bits. The question at hand here had to do with the standard type Integer being required to be at least 16 bits and therefore the standard mandating that an implementation be able to support at least 16 bit integers in general. Removing that requirement would mean that an implementation would be free to say something like "The largest integer you can declare is 8 bits..." - which seems like an unlikely thing to do, so having the requirement is not a bad thing. Would most programmers find a language implementation useful if you couldn't declare integers larger than (for example) 8 bits? Is an implementation greatly inconvenienced by having the standard type Integer required to be at least 16 bits? (Especially since they are free to create Short_Integer and Long_Integer as 8 and 32 bits if they like. Seems like they'd be free to create things that match most common hardware - even for small machines.) As for declaring one's own types, yes, I'm generally in favor of that. When I care about specific sizes and ranges, I'll make my own types or subtypes. Often, when all I care about is that I've got a variable big enough to handle some chore, I'll use the standard Integer type. If you want to argue that "All *competent* Ada programmers dutifully declare types to be sure they are as big as they need." then that would imply the standard should remove the types Integer, Float, Duration, etc. So long as these types remain in the standard, I think it is a good thing that the standard guarantees some minimal characteristics for the types so that a programmer knows what he can count on. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Lutz Donnerhacke" wrote in message news:slrnakkdbb.ou.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de... > > Ack for C, nack for Ada. Ada has the ability to specify the type ranges you > need. C hasn't. > > >That's why I wouldn't object to the standard requiring that an > >implementation support at least 16 bits - even for small machines. People > >expect it. > > No. Ada people expect to define there own types if they need certain ranges. > They expect efficient implementations for those types. >