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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,483a6309b2450e41
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 case statement incompatibility?
Date: 1996/08/28
Message-ID: <dewar.841212090@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 176957637
references: <4vv4bs$hb8@erlang.praxis.co.uk> <4vvmra$k3t@linus.mitre.org>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-28T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Michael says

"Another difference between 83 and 95 that was not documented is the
later rule that generics instantiated with signed numbers are
incompatible with generics instantiated with unsigned numbers."

This is wrong. Ada 83 did not have unsigned numbers. Any legal provisions
for some approximation of unsigned numbers in Ada 83 compilers are 100%
compatible with Ada 95. Ada 95 provides a completely new feature, modular
types, that you can use if you want, but the addition of this feature
does not create any incompatibilities!