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

[BrianG <briang000@gmail.com>]

Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> 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.

Um, ok, but I'm not sure why:

"An implementation may provide additional predefined signed integer 
types, declared in the visible part of Standard, whose first subtypes 
have names of the form Short_Integer, Long_Integer, Short_Short_Integer, 
Long_Long_Integer, etc."

I take the "of the form" and ", etc." as meaning these are examples of a 
sequence.
Shouldn't we also consider Short_Short_Short_Short_Short_Integer?  (I 
assume this would "normally" equate to 1 bit; what's the required range? 
- I think it would have to be -1..0 to meet the "standard integer type" 
rules. :-)

(That may not be what you meant. ;-)  No offense intended.
> 
>> 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?
> 
So, this one type is the only "incompatibility" you want in your "list"? 
  That seems of extremely limited use.  I could understand compiling all 
of the Annex M stuff for a set of implementations, or even all of the 
'optional' types, but not one piece.

> 
>>  My original point is
>> that I've never heard of anyone compiling that for all compilers
> 
> That's an exact answer to my question.
> 
As long as you understand that this is but one data point (and a small 
one at that:-).

>> (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?
They'd do that for Ada?  Wow!  :-):-)
For the Ada community, it just takes one person who cares about the 
issue and who cares to start the list.  (That's not me.  I don't use 
these types and wouldn't use that name in any case.  It has no meaning 
to me.)

> 
> In short - I think you are getting too hot for no reason.
I haven't been the slightest bit hot (or even particularly warm) about 
this topic.  (Driving home today, that's different - the heat index was 
around 115, the car was probably 140+ (F).)
My comment was simply questioning your use of the word "incompatibility" 
in this context.  You haven't provided anything that is convincing in 
that regard.

I don't think that it is incompatible to fail to provide something 
that's not required.  We apparently have different definitions of the 
word.  Se la vie.


--The whole wide world
-- An endless universe
--Yet we keep looking through
-- The eyeglass in reverse