Re: Weird behavior with modular type

["Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>]

Le Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:06:55 +0100, Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> a  
écrit:
>> Seems to me in both cases the expression on the right of "<" is
>> Universal_Integer. What compiler message did you get?
>
> If the argument on the right of "<" is a *static* Universal_Integer
> whose value is larger than 255, then an error message should be
> generated (4.9(35)).  Here, the expression is not static, so there
> shouldn't be an error; as I mentioned earlier, GNAT does give an error
> which appears to me to be a compiler bug.

I believe too this is a compiler bug for the failure to compile, as you  
confirm, I will submit a report (as an non‑supported user).

I still can't explain the first and the second interpretation. In the  
first case “10 ** I” seems to be interpreted as “(10 ** I) mod 256” and  
“Natural'Pos (10 ** I)” seems not.

That's why I expecting an answer from the RM. But could not remmember  
where such a thing is specified. So much different interpretation when  
switching from a Natural to an Universal_Integer.

-- 
“Syntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.” [1]
“Structured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.” [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming — Alan J. — P. Yale University