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: 103376,83d2d63f98e99c58 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-14 10:10:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn13feed!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.204!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!rwcrnsc54.POSTED!not-for-mail From: tmoran@acm.org Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: C to Ada conversion References: X-Newsreader: Tom's custom newsreader Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.234.13.56 X-Complaints-To: abuse@attbi.com X-Trace: rwcrnsc54 1042567833 12.234.13.56 (Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:10:33 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:10:33 GMT Organization: AT&T Broadband Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:10:33 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33008 Date: 2003-01-14T18:10:33+00:00 List-Id: >ok but otherwise it is very dangerous because it does not take into >account that in Ada the index range of arrays does not necessarly >start with 1 (or 0 as in C). A general purpose matrix package should >be able to cope with the situation that the index range could be >anything as long as the involved matrices are compatibel in size. That's why the comments said: >> -- It raises Constraint_Error if A or Inverse is not square >> -- or if their index ranges don't match >> -- or if the determinant of A is too small. For quick transliteration that didn't seem important. For a benchmark to compare with C, the extra Ada generality seemed like a bad idea. For a general purpose matrix package, I agree, the considerations are different.