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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1de1981df403322c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-10 21:13:14 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!82-43-33-75.cable.ubr01.croy.blueyonder.co.UK!not-for-mail
From: Nick Roberts <nick.roberts@acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: New limited range type?
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 05:13:05 +0000
Message-ID: <bopr58$1hil7c$1@ID-25716.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <bogf20$q1$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <20619edc.0311071005.15e6b9a8@posting.google.com>
 <bojou0$1f4o0i$1@ID-25716.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <af783afe.0311090634.7b143993@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 82-43-33-75.cable.ubr01.croy.blueyonder.co.uk (82.43.33.75)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068527592 51991788 82.43.33.75 (16 [25716])
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win95; en-US;
 rv:1.5) Gecko/20031013 Thunderbird/0.3
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
In-Reply-To: <af783afe.0311090634.7b143993@posting.google.com>
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2319
Date: 2003-11-11T05:13:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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