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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.107.190.199 with SMTP id o190mr9667918iof.32.1519687984168; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:33:04 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.157.14.124 with SMTP id n57mr545725otd.3.1519687984092; Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:33:04 -0800 (PST) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!o66no11844ita.0!news-out.google.com!a2ni19ite.0!nntp.google.com!w142no12226ita.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 15:33:03 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2001:470:9174:2:f8e6:d963:3657:8e1; posting-account=r0RePAgAAABkc8iAou09Mtfbf-fnKQql NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:470:9174:2:f8e6:d963:3657:8e1 References: <421d1598-68d7-4d0b-b596-6e9c59cf865c@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: 64-bit unsigned integer? From: MM Injection-Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 23:33:04 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Received-Body-CRC: 3240096703 X-Received-Bytes: 1931 Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50673 Date: 2018-02-26T15:33:03-08:00 List-Id: On Monday, 26 February 2018 23:19:24 UTC, Randy Brukardt wrote: > This limitation has always bothered me, but it never has been considered > important enough to address in the language. These days, we're moving away > from adding any more kinds of types; everything new will be a library much > like the containers or the one Dmitry showed. (The reason being that we then > don't need to define new kinds of generic types.) So I doubt the underlying > issue will ever be changed. Thanks, Randy - nice explanation. M --