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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,54889de51045a215 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-21 17:18:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!news-xfer.cox.net!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!small1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.gbronline.com!news.gbronline.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:18:10 -0500 Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:18:43 -0500 From: Wes Groleau Reply-To: groleau@freeshell.org Organization: Ain't no organization here! User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, es-mx, pt-br, fr-ca MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: += in ada References: <1066224357.499523@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1066231159.711433@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1066311805.222491@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F8F3077.60402@comcast.net> <3F900F35.50203@comcast.net> <3F952A59.5090001@noplace.com> <3F954670.8080004@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <3F954670.8080004@comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.9.86.73 X-Trace: sv3-QDjob3WJ/4SNLUHaOwW7pxmy+CES8JcXyKApW0QRkFlhxeAP3n4fsLtw96g0Wxg+Qll1ZEYt8nxIukl!Sv0a2tmY8FM8hD5W2wKipWqfhgnmT4HbovyvzWnqN8lXmD/YC0r6y4pkLDEdMVJXSDLXAoyR20vS X-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@gbronline.com X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1348 Date: 2003-10-21T19:18:43-05:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > That's all right, you got the order correct. I thought adding a full > word unsigned capability was more important, but I lost that > fight--then. Well, I didn't quite. It was perfectly legitimate for > compilers to treat System.Address as an unsigned word and provide > operations and literals for it. But users weren't happy with something > that implementation dependent. They could also provide unsigned types in other packages. Verdix did--unfortunately, they misinterpreted the requirement that built-in integer types must be symmetrical about zero to mean that the compiler must refuse to compile any such type. So their unsigned package spec was all comments, and users were prevented from defining any unsigned types. -- Wes Groleau ----------- Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp