On 12 Dec 2002 at 12:01, J. David Bryan wrote:
[...]
If it does, how is that construction better than "Integer (n)"?
"Integer (n)" is being allowed only due to a scoping bug in GPC. If that bug is fixed, then "Integer (n)" becomes illegal. That's why alternate ways of expressing "Integer (n)" are being discussed.
Ok - fair enough.
And when, one day, someone needs "Boolean (64)", "Boolean (128)", or "Boolean (24)", etc., then?
"Boolean (8)" is only a convenience; using "packed 0..255" (i.e., eight-bit cardinal) and a "To_Boolean" function would be equivalent.
Perhaps - but not as straightforward to use ...
Have you ever needed a "Boolean (13)", e.g.? ;-)
Not yet (but that is not to say that it will never be needed). On the other hand, I have needed an "Integer (7)" before ...
Best regards, The Chief -------- Prof. Abimbola A. Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/