On 12 Dec 2002 at 19:07, Prof A Olowofoyeku (The Afric wrote:
Perhaps - but not as straightforward to use ...
True, but given that "Integer (n)" must go away to fix the bug (at least, I presume the intent is for it to go away), then either an alternate syntax is needed, or a replacement method from the existing capability must be employed. For me, "packed x..y" is the next most straightforward construct (or more so, depending on the way that one views of subranges and the space they require). The proposed alternate syntaxes have been less clear, IMO.
Not yet (but that is not to say that it will never be needed).
I can't even think of a situation or a language where a Boolean would be expressed in some non-integral number of bytes. I'd be curious if anyone on this list has used, or even knows of a use of Boolean in this manner.
Regardless, treating the sized Boolean as a same-sized Cardinal (and explicitly converting to a Pascal Boolean if desired) would work.
On the other hand, I have needed an "Integer (7)" before ...
There is no question that specific bit sizes for integer types are very useful for interfacing, and that capability should be preserved.
-- Dave