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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,caabf5265fad78e5
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!texta.sil.at!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool4.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2009 23:08:29 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de>
Reply-To: rm.tsoh+bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (Windows/20090605)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Learning Ada
References: <59O1m.404661$4m1.69194@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
  <ba7f8fc3-e386-49cc-a1fb-e53f7e1f04bf@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <T0t4m.423818$4m1.53185@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
In-Reply-To: <T0t4m.423818$4m1.53185@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4a5267d0$0$32668$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 06 Jul 2009 23:08:32 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 9677cf4a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=U`YL=n=TWF8RLigj];iP=8A9EHlD;3Yc24Fo<]lROoR1^YC2XCjHcb9hG>GIg@Xl44A:ho7QcPOV3:<:lgK@8cX0l4cihkTDZI:
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6868
Date: 2009-07-06T23:08:32+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

anon wrote:
> Yes, I did redefine apart of Standard. Found this out back in the mid 1990 
> while testing GNAT 3.0x for a number of projects. Its also, one way (not the 
> best, but it is quick) of porting code from a 32-bit system down to a 16 or 
> 8 bit system. Like using Intel Core i7 system to write code for an Intel 
> 8086 system, which can use the same basic (non-protective mode) 
> instruction set. 

So you are proving our point that using Standard.Integer
has created a need to replace Standard.Integer with a
different integer type that helps porting?

Wouldn't it have been better if the programmers
had not used Standard.Integer in the first place,
where possible?