Re: Problem using Ada.Text_IO.Modular_IO

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

Why re-invent the Wheel!!! If we spend all day re-stating that which 
has been done then nothing new get done that day!  Just like Wash., which 
is a place where nothing get done except to find ways to seprate the people 
from their money, by doing nothing at all.


In <32e35e5a-3cae-4fdc-be4a-3ae1e146e9f3@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com> writes:
>On Jul 10, 12:25 am, a...@anon.org (anon) wrote:
>> It is easy to use and is tested and verified to work! To name one to
>> two reasons!
>
>Those don't seem like much of a reason.  Declaring your own type as
>"mod 2**64" seems pretty darn easy.  And what exactly do you mean by
>Unsigned_64 is "tested"?  Unsigned_64 is simply declared as "mod
>2**64" (this is specified by the language); so are you saying that
>operations on Unsigned_64 have been tested and have found to work
>right, but if you declare your own "mod 2**64" you have to do your own
>testing to make sure that operations on it work right?  I'm having
>trouble interpreting your comment in a way that makes any sense.
>
>Of course, it really doesn't matter which one you use (except,
>perhaps, to help prevent incorrect type conversions).  The only
>differences have to do with readability, pedagogy, and helping make
>your programs self-documenting.  But ever since Ada was designed, the
>position of the Ada community has been that it's better to avoid using
>the standard numeric types provided by Ada (Integer, Float) and define
>your own that explicitly include the numeric range you need.  You seem
>to be going in the opposite direction, by recommending that this user
>use a standard type provided by the language rather than defining his
>own (although the standard type you recommend is certainly better
>defined than Integer or Float).
>
>Another issue is that an implementation doesn't have to provide
>Interfaces.Unsigned_64.  It should be present on any target processor
>whose addressable unit is an 8-bit byte or a 16-, 32-, or 64-bit
>word.  But I've seen processors in the past that use 6-bit characters
>or 36-bit words, and in those cases, using Unsigned_64 instead of "mod
>2**64" will turn a portable program into a nonportable one.  I'll
>grant that such processors are rare these days.
>
>                                  -- Adam
>