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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog4.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder01.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.fsmpi.rwth-aachen.de!reality.xs3.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 16:17:00 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lhkj4d$89k$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>	
 <2d62368c-9f64-49f3-98a8-5121d0c0fa23@googlegroups.com>	
 <lhi4d5$c2s$1@loke.gir.dk> <lhi8cb$43o$2@dont-email.me>
 <1396504291.12566.134.camel@pascal.home.net> <lhiv0d$pab$1@dont-email.me>
 <1396545517.12456.30.camel@pascal.home.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1396559822 8500 69.95.181.76 (3 Apr 2014 21:17:02 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 21:17:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
X-Original-Bytes: 2518
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:185481
Date: 2014-04-03T16:17:00-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Pascal Obry" <pascal@obry.net> wrote in message 
news:1396545517.12456.30.camel@pascal.home.net...
>Le mercredi 02 avril 2014 à 23:27 -0700, Jeffrey Carter a écrit :
>> On 04/02/2014 10:51 PM, Pascal Obry wrote:
>> >
>> > But again this is doable today in Ada (even 1983) with a library and
>> > proper overriding of the operators.
>>
>> Well, no. Unbounded_Integer would work like any other integer type. You 
>> wouldn't
>> have to convert literals or named numbers:
>>
>> I : Unbounded_Integer := 1E1000;
>
>Ok, some little annoyance indeed.

Very little, with proper operator definitions

I : Unbounded_Integer := +1E1000;

works today.

And it would be pretty simple to provide an aspect for allowing literals for 
a private type.

But there is no advantage to supporting it as a built-in type - and it would 
have a significant cost, the elimination of practical generic sharing. (If 
built-in integers could use an "unbounded" type, then all integer math in a 
shared generic body would have to use that math. In which case, performance 
would be dismal. Even supporting 64-bit integers on a 32-bit machine would 
have a version of that effect, but of course no where near as severe.)

                             Randy.