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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.unit0.net!takemy.news.telefonica.de!telefonica.de!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 11:15:49 -0400
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Message-ID: <wccy4zmphp6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com>
 <2d62368c-9f64-49f3-98a8-5121d0c0fa23@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: pcls7.std.com 1396538146 27619 192.74.137.71 (3 Apr 2014 15:15:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:15:46 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:JwUwhtYvIqZFq+ctmq7WpFDWcI4=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:19091
Date: 2014-04-03T11:15:49-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Britt <britt.snodgrass@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 5:41:16 PM UTC-4, Stoik wrote:
>> I wonder what is high on your list of wishes for Ada 202X?
>
> require basic support for 64-bit integer types:
>    Standard.Long_Long_Integer (I'm currently missing this in ObjectAda)

Don't make the mistake of thinking standards require anybody
to do anything.  They pretend to, being full of words like
"shall" and "must" and "illegal".  But standards compliance is
voluntary.

As far as I know, ObjectAda does not conform to Ada 2012, so adding
a requirement to Ada 2022 (or 2025 or whatever) is unlikely to
have any effect on ObjectAda.  All it takes to change that is
money.

But I agree with you that Ada ought to require[*] 64-bit integers
(and more, as Jeff Carter said).  On the other hand, I have
no use for Standard.Long_Long_Integer -- I just want to be
able to say things like "range 1..2**123".

[*]or at least pretend to... ;-)

>    Interfaces.Integer_64
>    Interfaces.Unsigned_64
>    and corresponding support for C99's "long long", "int64_t" and "uint64_t" in Interfaces.C

Yes, all of those make sense.

- Bob