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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,6a8952cbe009f3ed
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.66.78.232 with SMTP id e8mr778566pax.29.1360469025395;
        Sat, 09 Feb 2013 20:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 oq8ni1865pbb.0!nntp.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Numerical calculations: Why not use fixed point types for
 everything?
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 23:20:15 +0200
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <anan0fFn8qlU1@mid.individual.net>
References: <db7b4d36-6c49-4501-954e-68ecc55c3d32@googlegroups.com>
 <4905b963-0036-4129-8050-fb26ef0154d6@googlegroups.com>
 <32314026-23ae-45b8-a4c5-e589e7d79de2@googlegroups.com>
 <kdttga$83d$3@dont-email.me>
 <64e3c342-d042-40a2-8a16-b1f0cdff9f16@googlegroups.com>
 <91527f7c-0679-4c21-95c7-a07f3fff265d@googlegroups.com>
 <8cc51443-23f6-4736-a862-d0223998fc2e@googlegroups.com>
 <b9aea316-4b79-41ce-987e-746432945e22@googlegroups.com>
 <753a3719-e15f-4626-b3cc-ac76f7ef7499@googlegroups.com>
 <8ee504a6-b371-42ef-a91e-bbb70e3b81d8@googlegroups.com>
 <an93k2Fbg9jU1@mid.individual.net>
 <2665b0e1-0558-45ac-9a26-7eb7a1ecd689@googlegroups.com>
 <an9drdFdmgeU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ee696908-df30-4e46-a9f4-645749d3a388@googlegroups.com>
 <an9uksFhgjpU1@mid.individual.net> <wcck3qovvcv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net
 KKwYibefFYNVFe6ny7o0sQLZY+aB+Tqxi/bvOhfmF6sgRWMpWfp8iiF7YvbEk08co9
Cancel-Lock: sha1:hQbdFYDBvd7dOA97CthulnYo5DM=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
In-Reply-To: <wcck3qovvcv.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-02-04T23:20:15+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13-02-04 19:31 , Robert A Duff wrote:
> Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> writes:
> 
>> Depends. Such type-less "named numbers" (in Ada-speak) have different
>> properties than typed constant objects: if you combine them in an
>> expression, the compiler uses unbounded-precision and unbounded-range
>> arithmetic, ...
> 
> That's true for all static expressions, not just ones involving
> named numbers.

Yes. But the rules for what expression are static are a bit complex (or
at least longish), while using only named numbers is a simple rule of
thumb for me.

Moreover, the compiler will complain if the expression for a named
number is not static for some reason, but will accept a non-static
expression for a constant object.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .