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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,6a8952cbe009f3ed
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.68.117.230 with SMTP id kh6mr366596pbb.1.1360469025223;
        Sat, 09 Feb 2013 20:03:45 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 mj10ni1789pbb.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nrc-news.nrc.ca!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Numerical calculations: Why not use fixed point types for
 everything?
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 09:44:58 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net
Message-ID: <keoohj$a6i$1@dont-email.me>
References: <db7b4d36-6c49-4501-954e-68ecc55c3d32@googlegroups.com>
 <4905b963-0036-4129-8050-fb26ef0154d6@googlegroups.com>
 <32314026-23ae-45b8-a4c5-e589e7d79de2@googlegroups.com>
 <kdttga$83d$3@dont-email.me>
 <64e3c342-d042-40a2-8a16-b1f0cdff9f16@googlegroups.com>
 <91527f7c-0679-4c21-95c7-a07f3fff265d@googlegroups.com>
 <8cc51443-23f6-4736-a862-d0223998fc2e@googlegroups.com>
 <b9aea316-4b79-41ce-987e-746432945e22@googlegroups.com>
 <753a3719-e15f-4626-b3cc-ac76f7ef7499@googlegroups.com>
 <8ee504a6-b371-42ef-a91e-bbb70e3b81d8@googlegroups.com>
 <an93k2Fbg9jU1@mid.individual.net>
 <2665b0e1-0558-45ac-9a26-7eb7a1ecd689@googlegroups.com>
 <an9drdFdmgeU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ee696908-df30-4e46-a9f4-645749d3a388@googlegroups.com>
 <an9uksFhgjpU1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:44:37 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="656ea2f23126f57fb36504d2d15a002c";
	logging-data="10450"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ig2smQCukfbD1eTbqV8E703alUUWnkgo="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
In-Reply-To: <an9uksFhgjpU1@mid.individual.net>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:D3+G7ewrxtmXSWrZCfsbawapNR4=
X-Received-Bytes: 2629
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-02-04T09:44:58-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 02/04/2013 07:24 AM, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 13-02-04 12:09 , Ada novice wrote:
>>
>> When assigning constants, I always use
>>
>>     Number : constant := 100.0
>>
>> and then lets the compiler decides how it wants to treat the constant
>> when say multiplying with a type such as integer,
>
> (You can't multiply 100.0 with an integer, unless you do a type
> conversion or define your own multiplication operator.)

Sure you can.

    Twice : constant := 2 * Number;
    Half  : constant := Number / 2;

are both legal (ARM 4.5.5).

-- 
Jeff Carter
"I'm a lumberjack and I'm OK."
Monty Python's Flying Circus
54