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-Thread: 103376,4ff929aa5c2b2834
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ranges and (non)static constraints
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <mailman.25.1163760015.4389.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <1msd2xaahtsgv.f8io255x4f0n$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <455db67b_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 16:07:23 +0100
Message-ID: <pu08fww26xs9$.jctxs7a23inh.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 17 Nov 2006 16:07:23 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: d5ac82f2.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=V44am0Da59nPKPPVf;4hUj4IUK<Cl32<a4Fo<]lROoRa4nDHegD_]Re0O4XWg]<IKlDNcfSJ;bb[eFCTGGVUmh?dN\HXHJ4e80n7>4WKQd`d[c
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:7529
Date: 2006-11-17T16:07:23+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006 13:30:34 -0000, Stuart wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
> news:1msd2xaahtsgv.f8io255x4f0n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> 
>> These are sufficiently different. Consider this example:
>>
>>   N : constant := 2**64; -- Legal in GNAT
>>   type T is range 1..N;  -- Illegal in GNAT
>>
>> (This is not a bug)
>>
>> I would at least require the second be legal when the first is.
> 
> Why?  The first is a named value declaration (rather than a constant object 
> declaration).  In the type declaration I think the semantics of Ada require 
> that the base type be a signed type, which thus introduces issues of 
> symmetry around zero.

So? Let it allocate two 64-bit words! It is not my business, Ada is a
higher-level language.

> Unfortunately I am in a bit of a rush at the moment so I don't have a chance 
> to test an idea like:
>    type T is mod N range 1..N-1;

You mean:

   type T is mod N;
   subtype S is T range 1..N;

No, that won't work.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de