12 Dec
2002
12 Dec
'02
5:16 p.m.
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.
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.
-- Dave