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: 103376,4afa25b13bea6bcc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Two dimensional arrays: help
Date: 1998/01/06
Message-ID: <dewar.884109127@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 313350270
References: <34B0C8A6.B19098B6@a01-unix.gsyc.inf.uc3m.es>
 	<dewar.884005840@merv> <68qqlp$25v@top.mitre.org> 	<dewar.884014602@merv>
 <874t3hnwv4.fsf@ix.netcom.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 884109290 32263 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-01-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<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 :-)