From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two dimensional arrays: help
Date: 1998/01/06
Date: 1998-01-06T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <dewar.884109127@merv> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 874t3hnwv4.fsf@ix.netcom.com
<<I for one clearly remember Michael complaining that the modular types
in Ada95 don't behave the way the Rationale implied and you responding
that the Rationale is wrong.
>>
Of course I know perfectly well that the rules changed and that the
Rationale did not get updated, but that's not the issue, Michael mentioned
"loss of efficiency" in the rule changes, and I don't see that. Perhaps
he is referring to the range check now introduced for unsigned to signed
conversion, but that's really a conceptually necessary check. If you don't
like it, suppress it as you would any other check (after all checks are
all about loss of efficiency from one point of view :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1998-01-06 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1998-01-05 0:00 About a C/C++ to ADA translator Marcos Jimenez Bermejo
1998-01-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-05 0:00 ` Two dimensional arrays: help Michael F Brenner
1998-01-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-06 0:00 ` Chris Morgan
1998-01-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
1998-01-05 0:00 ` About a C/C++ to ADA translator Marcos Jimenez Bermejo
1998-01-05 0:00 ` Kenneth W. Sodemann
1998-01-05 0:00 ` nabbasi
1998-01-05 0:00 ` David Weller
1998-01-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1998-01-07 0:00 ` Benoit Jauvin-Girard
1998-01-12 0:00 ` Jean-Claude MAHIEUX
1998-01-09 0:00 ` Brian G. Holmes
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox