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: 103376,7a2d45f282a1da1c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-09-03 18:43:55 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!sn-xit-03!sn-xit-01!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: float with 24-bit resolution
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 20:45:54 -0500
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <vld66qoq60m7ab@corp.supernews.com>
References: <3F3CCB0F.543478AF@adrianhoe.nospam.com.my>
 <Yh4%a.148778$o%2.63694@sccrnsc02> <x7vy8xuu235.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
 <Zas%a.5307$7z1.3683@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <3f405ef4$1_1@news.tm.net.my>
 <bj40b.59$yQ3.11@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>
 <vl0bs87osh9j53@corp.supernews.com> <3f54bf19_1@news.tm.net.my>
 <uwucq4kdz.fsf@earthlink.net>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:42123
Date: 2003-09-03T20:45:54-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Matthew Heaney" <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uwucq4kdz.fsf@earthlink.net...
> Adrian Hoe <mailbox@adrianhoe.nospam.com.my> writes:
>
> > Randy Brukardt wrote:
> > >
> > >     type Randys_Type is delta The_Small range -Limit+The_Small ..
> > > Limit-The_Small;
> >
> > "-Limit+The_Small .. Limit-The_Small" does not comply to my requirement
> > which the angle must be in -360.0000000 to +359.9999571.
>
> I didn't understand Randy's comment.  As far as I know, the correction
> for T'Small is only necessary for the upper bound, not the lower bound
> (unless this is a 1's complement machine).

You're right. That was an Ada 83 failing which was corrected in Ada 95 (see
3.5.9(12). It's interesting that the AARM doesn't mention the change from
Ada 83. Perhaps it was an Ada 83 AI; I know we had to modify our compiler to
use a symetric range in order to pass validation.).

                 Randy.