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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,f822ae7b0f7433c1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!peer1.news.newnet.co.uk!194.159.246.34.MISMATCH!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon.j.wright@mac.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Translating an embedded C algorithm
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:49:13 +0000
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <m264b23fp2.fsf@grendel.local>
References: <1168871816.263502.212100@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com>
 <mailman.22.1168919455.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <45acc0c3$0$22514$39db0f71@news.song.fi>
 <45af9c60$0$22524$39db0f71@news.song.fi> <87y7o01e4y.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <eoorvr$u12$1@aioe.org> <45b080e8$0$22527$39db0f71@news.song.fi>
NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1169239754 21982 62.49.19.209 (19 Jan 2007 20:49:14
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 20:49:14 +0000 (UTC)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KujcXdTxdkdHhz0Nj2lIJFRd980=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (darwin)
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8351
Date: 2007-01-19T20:49:13+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@nospam.please> writes:

> Cesar Rabak wrote:
>> Ludovic Brenta escreveu:
>>
>>> Niklas Holsti writes:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> private package Thermometer.Some_Particular_Kind_Of_Sensor is
>>>    type Count_T is range 0 .. 1024;
>>
>> The ADC is ten bit, so it should be: "type Count_T is range 0
>> .. 1023;" -- 2#11111_11111#
>
> In this case, I find the base-2 literal harder to read -- how many
> 1's are there really? My eyes cross if I try to count
> them... Perhaps the best form is 2**10 - 1, as in Steve's version of
> the function.

I suppose it would depend on whether your roots were in octal or hex;
personally I started on an F1600 where the address fields were 5-bits
wide, so I instantly recognise 11111 as 31, but most would prefer
2#11_1111_1111# or 2#1_111_111_111# if we have to use base 2. Steve
wins, though!