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=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,b6d862eabdeb1fc4
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!gegeweb.org!aioe.org!not-for-mail
From: =?iso-8859-15?Q?Yannick_Duch=EAne_=28Hibou57=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada noob here! Is Ada widely used?
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 06:08:31 +0200
Organization: Ada At Home
Message-ID: <op.vdu1shhqxmjfy8@garhos>
References: <jhaJn.4661$z%6.1650@edtnps83>
 <0e88de66-128c-48fd-9b9f-fdb4357f318a@z17g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <hud0f9$n8u$1@speranza.aioe.org> <op.vdtlrvrlxmjfy8@garhos>
 <yvu10n9bap55$.1occbqoi8kamk$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <hudsf0$41p$1@speranza.aioe.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nOz3PrZI1lJ+TrIP91FCvA.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
User-Agent: Opera Mail/10.53 (Win32)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11331
Date: 2010-06-06T06:08:31+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:02:36 +0200, Nasser M. Abbasi <nma@12000.org> a  =

=E9crit:
> I meant complex type in ada is not an elementary type. as in
So this was indeed about to have Complex beside Integer and others.

To keep it simple : it is not elementary, because it can be built using =
 =

more elementary things, so this is not really elementary. If something c=
an  =

be created using something else, it is not so much elementary.

May be the matter is efficiency so ? But as there is no low-level suppor=
t  =

for Complex in any architecture I know (I have never heard about a CPU  =

with a Complex number instructions set), there is no way to formally  =

assert it is less efficient as a composite type. And if ever a CPU suppo=
rt  =

it, an implementation may always be able to get benefit from any dedicat=
ed  =

CPU instructions in its implementation of Complex.

Note: I heard to say FORTRAN specifications of Real numbers is more  =

relaxed than Ada ones and have less requirements. If there is ever an  =

efficiency gap between FORTRAN and Ada, perhaps this can simply be  =

explained by their different requirement with Real numbers ?

-- =

There is even better than a pragma Assert: a SPARK --# check.
--# check C and WhoKnowWhat and YouKnowWho;
--# assert Ada;
--  i.e. forget about previous premises which leads to conclusion
--  and start with new conclusion as premise.