Re: Ranges and (non)static constraints

[Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com>]

Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:

> 2) You want a "reasonable" type, given the capabilities of the machine. 
> Either derive from Integer, or use Integer directly (not a bad choice 
> for vector or matrix indices for example). That's what String did. But 
> in that case, there is no reason to put an additional range constraint. 
> What I was objecting to is putting a range on a derivation from Integer.

Then imagine that the following apply (both):
1. I want a "reasonable" type (matrix indices or even... strings), which 
will play nice with the underlying machine architecture.
2. I want a named subtype with dynamically determined constraints so 
that I can use this named subtype in subsequent array definitions, 
loops, etc.

With such assumptions, the following:

type T is new Integer range 1..N;

seems reasonable, right?

-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/