On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:46:12 -0700 (PDT), Eric Hughes wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:56:57 -0700 (PDT), Eric Hughes wrote:
>> I assert that that Ada as currently defined has no bound on the size
>> of numbers within universal_integer.
>
> On Apr 15, 8:58 am, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's an upper bound for a compiler, not for "Ada as currently
> defined". Please check my language carefully.
>
>> 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.
>
> "All compilers that were, all that are, and all that will ever be"--
> these are not part of the Ada language definition. My assertion
> stands.
Neither a bound nor its absence is required. The former does not imply the
latter. Try a certified Ada compiler on:
X : constant := 2**(2**(2**(2**(2**1000))));
> I would still like to know what you think universal_integer actually is.
Universal_Integer is merely an integer type.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
|
