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,c462e8ad74872a98
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Question on modular types
Date: 1997/01/11
Message-ID: <dewar.852989288@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 209147363
references: <dewar.852779585@merv> <E3qur5.7LM.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-01-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Tuck said (answering my query about unary minus on modular types)

"Two places: 3.5.4(19) gives the general rule that anytime the result
of a predefined operator of a modular type is outside the base range of
the type, the result is reduced modulo the modulus of the type.
The second is in a note, 4.5.4(3)."


Ah, yes, silly me, expecting to find the semantics of unary minus in
the section on operator semantics (or at least in the chapter on
expression semantics) :-)

Yes, I saw the note, but the question was where that note came from,
especially since 4.5.4(1) says that "-" on modular types has its
conventional meaning (which I can only take as the mathematical
meaning), and hence contradicts 3.5.4(19).