Re: New limited range type?

[Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org>]

Martin Dowie wrote:

>>    function S'Conform (X: in universal_real) return S;
> 
> I can cope with that - although I don't like the name much.

I agree, Conform is not good.

> How about:
> 
>    function S'Limit (X:...

Or maybe Limit_to_Bounds? Wordy, but clearer.

>>Note how I define a fixed point type to provide a big enough base range (in 
>>this case 50 complete turns either way) for all calculations, and then a 
>>subtype of it to define the required confined or normalised range.
> 
> While that's good technique, I presume your NOT saying that the RM would
> require this?

I thinkj it would be necessary to adopt this approach, since the base range 
required cannot be guessed. I think the neatest solution is to require a 
named type with this range to be declared, and then subtypes with the 
required limited ranges to be declared and used to indicate the bounds of 
the operation.

> Also, why not allow it for any scalar type?

Yes, I think you're right. Shall I send a proposal to ada-comment?

-- 
Nick Roberts