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-Thread: 103376,91b14dfe22ec5b78 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: aschwarz@acm.org (skidmarks) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Signed vs Natural/32-bits vs 31 bits Date: 27 Oct 2004 08:35:00 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <35f054ea.0410270735.7892ff30@posting.google.com> References: <35f054ea.0410250743.45a14771@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 199.46.200.231 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1098891300 14846 127.0.0.1 (27 Oct 2004 15:35:00 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:35:00 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5773 Date: 2004-10-27T08:35:00-07:00 List-Id: David Hoos in a private communication indicated that the least significant bit was (indeed) deleted. What is confusing about this dialog is that I thought that 'Unchecked_Conversion' meant that all bits were used and the bits were converted to the 'new' type. Under this impression, my thought was that I'd have a 32-bit Natural number. What I seem to be told is that that is not accurate and that 'Unchecked_Conversion' takes less liberties than I'd hoped. Any idea why?