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=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,b61052ba3fdc8c26 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-01 08:22:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: wilhelm.spickermann@t-online.de Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Integers and Mathematical Correctness Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:18:36 +0100 (CET) Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1004631723 86394 137.194.161.2 (1 Nov 2001 16:22:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 16:22:03 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Return-Path: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on Linux X-Priority: 3 (Normal) In-Reply-To: <3BE15D02.77C8C5A1@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> X-Sender: 0211750756-0001@t-dialin.net Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15548 Date: 2001-11-01T17:18:36+01:00 On 01-Nov-01 Wes Groleau wrote: > If your c_integer package is going to do something > else, I would advise the following comment at the > beginning of it: > > -- NOTE: This package redefines integer division > -- for the benefit of folks who think the > -- RM definition is stupid. Do not expect > -- division of these types to behave like > -- other integer types! > I think, thats going too far. I, for instance, do not not believe the "RM definition is stupid" -- it just reflects the abilities of normal hardware and that is a *good* idea (thanks to Robert Dewar for pointing me on that fact). I will not use the c_integer_package, but only because it cannot make the old division operator vanish completely and I don�t want to have two of them with the same name and a different semantics. But: It would be much more practical, if the division operator (and the hardware) would be the way Chris Danx called "mathematically correct". Most programs with integer division - avoid negative numbers or - have to do additional operations which would not be necessary with mathematical."/" and "mod" or - would be equally complex. Wilhelm