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,b9c1962801ad6b73 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-01-22 16:24:55 PST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsmi-us.news.garr.it!NewsITBone-GARR!news.mailgate.org!newsfeed.stueberl.de!news2.euro.net!ash.uu.net!world!news From: Robert A Duff Subject: Re: Fussy Standard: what is modulo Address? User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 00:23:57 GMT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <3e2f1663$0$33931$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:33361 Date: 2003-01-23T00:23:57+00:00 List-Id: porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes: > > I don't think so. "Modulo" means the "mod" operator for > > System.Address. This is defined in 13.7.1(8). The AARM states this > > explicitly in 13.3(24.b) and 13.7.1(11.b). > > So, it is stated nly in AARM, not in ARM? It is a bug. The reason I put it in the AARM only is that I thought it was obvious what it must mean. What else could "address modulo mumble" mean besides the "mod" operator on type Address? So I disagree that it's a bug. > > The manual does not define the semantics of this "mod" operator. How > > could it? Address is just a private type provided by the implementer -- > > it could be anything. > > The manual should define relations between System.Address and > System.Storage_Element.Integer_Address. To define these seems being > just forgotten. No these relations which should be true accordingly > human intuition may have bad impact on reliability. I don't see the problem here. Type Address and Integer_Address are too hardware-dependent to say much about them (or the relationships between them) in the RM. - Bob