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,ec68713820981fe9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: SI Units Solicitation - Upgrade from comments
Date: 1997/08/22
Message-ID: <dewar.872265474@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 268012090
References: <33FBD411.3B4A@erols.com> <dewar.872181519@merv>
 <33FD168C.3D4D@erols.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bill wrote

<<The standard calls that type Real.  It cannot be called Float.  In most
compilers it is probably a subtype of Long_Float, but you cannot count
on that.  I would be delighted to consider another term, if it can be
generally agreed upon.  (I do not believe that the users would be happy
with a multisyballic name, like AdaTPD_Float, or even Float_15).  So far
the only one that has won acceptance (besides Float) is "Real".>>

I am confused, if the standard specifies the name, then how can we
consider another term at all?

Actually it seeems to me that the package should in any case be generic,
rather than relying on a particular predefined floating-point type. Packages
that introduce specified types of this kind do not work well together!