Re: What is the best way to convert Integer to Short_Short_Integer?

[Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>]

On 15 Cze, 04:24, BrianG <briang...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Let me try to make my point again, since you conveniently cut out my
> reference to the actual language definition you're discussing.

I have conveniently cut it out as it was not convincing.
Now let's have that spelled out explicitly.

> What makes Short_Short_Integer an "optional" part of the language?

AARM.

> Just
> because the RM mentions it as an example of types an implementation
> "may" provide

Well, that's my understanding of the word "may" -> it's optional.

> Should implementations that
> provide no "nonstandard integer types" also be listed in your
> "compatibility list", since they are also a "may provide"?

The implementations can be divided into two groups: those that provide
this type and those that don't. Is it that difficult to document?

> How many Ada compilers implement "type Day is (Mon, Tue, Wed, Thu, Fri,
> Sat, Sun);" listed in 3.5.1(14)?

Again not convincing - this point is in the "Examples" part, which
explains possible uses of the language and not what is provided by
language implementations.

> BTW, what you're asking for (see M (13)) is required to be documented
> for each compiler

Excellent - that just makes it easier to compile a compatibility list.

> My original point is
> that I've never heard of anyone compiling that for all compilers

That's an exact answer to my question.

> (whatever "all" means -  how could you prove the non-existence of
> others?).

Excellent point - what about making the list open for additional
entries? Like, you know, a wiki page instead of carving something in
stone?
The C++ community could do that, no?

> If you could come up with what you would consider a useful
> definition of "all" compilers,

Like, you know, this one:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Installing

Looks like a reasonable list for me.

> But what's the point?

There is a parallel discussion about making the web content more
attractive and friendly for Ada newcomers. Sounds like a valid point
to me.

> Standard.Short_Short_Integer gains you nothing you can't get by defining
> your own.

Why not correcting the AARM to express this in the first place?

> (Which brings up another question:  What is your "compatible" definition
> of Short_Short_Integer?  There's nothing in the wording that mandates it
> be 8 bits.)

Excellent - what about providing additional information to the
"compatibility list" about what are the actual implementation choices?


In short - I think you are getting too hot for no reason.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.inspirel.com

YAMI4 - Messaging Solution for Distributed Systems
http://www.inspirel.com/yami4