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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD, FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,e1bb40a3d604c4b X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: BrianG Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What is the best way to convert Integer to Short_Short_Integer? Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:27:18 -0400 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <3133a7d5-37ec-4db7-94f0-df15b3535af1@k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <24e3f643-5bb5-44c9-89ec-093247f6c194@w12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:25:38 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="T7+V4ifb+JMfyy+SzYQkkw"; logging-data="4885"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/xvEkEzPK0sUgxPnK76Ktj" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100317) In-Reply-To: Cancel-Lock: sha1:WERW6lJHduyaOSO85BcQDqPo/Rg= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:12748 Date: 2010-06-15T21:27:18-04:00 List-Id: Maciej Sobczak wrote: > On 15 Cze, 04:24, BrianG 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