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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1de1981df403322c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-07 12:10:56 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed-west.nntpserver.com!hub1.meganetnews.com!nntpserver.com!falcon.america.net!eagle.america.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Larry Hazel <lhhazel@otelco.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: New limited range type?
References: <bogf20$q1$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <1068220677.950551@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <boggo8$3us$1@titan.btinternet.com>
 <1068224385.790621@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <bognmh$s42$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <bognmh$s42$1@sparta.btinternet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <l%Sqb.1767$X5.22782@eagle.america.net>
Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:11:21 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.0.32.41
X-Trace: eagle.america.net 1068235857 66.0.32.41 (Fri,
 07 Nov 2003 15:10:57 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 15:10:57 EST
Organization: 24hoursupport.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2228
Date: 2003-11-07T14:11:21-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Dowie wrote:
> "Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1068224385.790621@master.nyc.kbcfp.com...
> 
>>Martin Dowie wrote:
>>
>>>Standard operator precedent rules should apply - I can't see
>>>that as being outragous?
>>
>>But Ada doesn't define operator evaluation order, so this would
>>be a major change in the language. (Not a bad one, just big.)
> 
> 
> Well it 'kind of' does in that the order must be "an allowed result
> for the left-to-right association".
> 
> You could argue that the case "A := B + C - D," for these 'limited
> range' types _can_only_ be equivilent to "A := (B + C) - D;".
> 
> 
> 
An analog computer implements saturating arithmetic.  Oh my God, how 
long has it been since anyone saw an analog computer.  The sum B + C - D 
would be computed all at once and would only saturate if the final 
result was out of range.  So, I think the expression should be evaluated 
in a base type with saturation applied to the result.