On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT), Eric Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Eric Hughes wrote:
>> Seriously, we just disagree about this. I can't take
>> universal_integer seriously as a root class, because it's impossible
>> to write down any representation of it.
>
> On Apr 15, 2:02 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> Yes, because it is not what you wanted it be.
>
> I assert that that Ada as currently defined has no bound on the size
> of numbers within universal_integer.
It specifies the lower bound and leaves the upper bound up to the vendor.
Which by no means imply that there were no upper bound. In any given
instance of Ada compiler universal_integer has an upper bound. Moreover,
because the number of all instances of all existed, existing and future
Ada
compilers is obviously finite, there also exists the upper bound of
universal_integer as a whole.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
|
