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: 103376,904f3551267aacb0
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: How to hide instantiation of Direct_IO?
Date: 1997/02/25
Message-ID: <dewar.856921347@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 221461874
References: <5dqt5n$j3s$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> <330CCC71.DFD@watson.ibm.com>
 <dewar.856650787@merv> <331316F1.7F2C@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Norman said

<<A 64-bit Count type is quite plausible:  In early versions of AIX, one
of the first needs that arose for 64-bit integers was for file offsets.>>

Sure, but this is for offsets into arbitrary files. I think you are being
quite unrealistic to assume that anyone would decide that a text file
might have more than 2 billion lines of text, or a single line longer
than 2 billion characters. The only way I can imagine an implementor
choosing to use 64-bits for count is if the machine naturally handled
64-bit integers, and type Integer was 64-bits. So I am sorry I disagree,
this is implausible, and I cannot imagine an implementor making this
decision.