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: a07f3367d7,caabf5265fad78e5 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!aioe.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!not-for-mail From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Learning Ada (Was: unsigned type) Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:15:02 -0500 Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Message-ID: References: <59O1m.404661$4m1.69194@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> <62792744-daca-437b-bdee-4b8a21f7ce27@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <82oq45tj2uu26u6ecsgq70bsjskr9dvghr@4ax.com> <878wj61bpo.fsf_-_@nbi.dk> <4a4f6cce$0$31869$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net> <4Aa4m.421894$4m1.207252@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net X-Trace: munin.nbi.dk 1247098552 17613 69.95.181.76 (9 Jul 2009 00:15:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2009 00:15:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5512 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.5579 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6915 Date: 2009-07-08T19:15:02-05:00 List-Id: "Adam Beneschan" wrote in message news:c5a3eb71-0395-4727-b4dd-826b1196d262@m3g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >On Jul 6, 4:15 pm, "Randy Brukardt" wrote: > >> All the standard requires is that Integer is 16-bits > >You mean "at least 16 bits", right? Yes, of course. >>, and that Long_Integer >> (if it exists) is longer than Integer. > >I think that should be "at least as long"... (3.5.4(25): "the range of >Integer should be no wider than that of Long_Integer"). Of course, if >Integer is only 16 bits then Long_Integer must be longer (since >Long_Integer must be at least 32 bits), but if Integer is 32 bits then >it appears OK if Long_Integer is the same size as Integer. You're correct of course, although I think it is pretty dubious to have a Long_Integer type with the same range as Integer. Probably it is allowed to support another form of compatibility (so that the name exists), but it is always better to not use the type in the first place (unlike Integer, you're never required to use Long_Integer). Randy. -- Adam