On 12 Dec 2002 at 11:16, J. David Bryan wrote:
On 12 Dec 2002 at 2:27, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
If so, this might justify dropping `Integer/Cardinal/Word (n)' entirely.
That was my thought. If "Integer (n)" is simply a syntactic convenience for "packed -(2 pow (n - 1)) .. 2 pow (n - 1) - 1", then no functionality is lost by dropping the "Integer (n)" form, and it fixes a few problems at the same time.
Does the construct "packed -(2 pow (n - 1)) .. 2 pow (n - 1) - 1" guarantee the size (in bits)? If it does, how is that construction better than "Integer (n)"?
However, `Boolean (n)' cannot be done this way. It may be used for interfaces to other languages.
I acknowledge that it is helpful to have foreign (e.g., C) semantics for interfacing. But is there any need for a general Boolean size, or only for "Boolean (8)", "Boolean (16)", etc.? If so, then the latter might be predefined, and the general mechanism dropped.
And when, one day, someone needs "Boolean (64)", "Boolean (128)", or "Boolean (24)", etc., then?
Best regards, The Chief --------- Prof. Abimbola Olowofoyeku (The African Chief) Web: http://www.bigfoot.com/~african_chief/