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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1cf653444208df72
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 02:28:14 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.iks-jena.de!lutz
From: lutz@iks-jena.de (Lutz Donnerhacke)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:28:06 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: IKS GmbH Jena
Message-ID: <slrn9saph5.hv.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
References: <Xns912FE7C63AC8Dralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <slrn9rn660.uu.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Xns912FEBF1DF3EBralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <tTRu7.25751$S_6.2879078@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bbd6287.346843109@news.cis.dfn.de>
 <9pkco7$9qe1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bc15a16.1317281@news.cis.dfn.de>
 <9ps9uu$a2g1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <3BC2FD54.69BA446D@sparc01.ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
 <9pv54d$9aa1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <3bc40a3f.4768875@news.cis.dfn.de>
 <slrn9s8bnv.11k.lutz@taranis.iks-jena.de>
 <20011010085528.Q21444-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <9q259j$8201@news.cis.okstate.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: taranis.iks-jena.de
X-Trace: branwen.iks-jena.de 1002792486 30837 217.17.192.37 (11 Oct 2001
 09:28:06 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@iks-jena.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 09:28:06 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.3 (Linux)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14231
Date: 2001-10-11T09:28:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

* David Starner wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 15:59:53 GMT, Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
>> This is one of those few cases where I think the "safe" choice (arbitrary
>> precision integers) is the wrong default.
>
>Why? It seems to me you wouldn't lose much in Ada if you let Integer be
>an arbitrary precision integer, and forced people to use subtypes with
>restricted ranges to get access to hardware types. It may not be the
>best trade-off for Ada, but for a higher-level language, I don't see why
>not.

I was really confused noting that GNAT does restrict the range of
univeral_integer.