Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.programming > #6085
| From | "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.programming |
| Subject | Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... |
| Date | 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <n614fp$q6t$1@speranza.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <n5v0p5$8s3$1@dont-email.me> <n6063m$ccb$1@dont-email.me> <n60m14$lf$1@dont-email.me> <87h9j06ip1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <n610v9$afu$1@dont-email.me> |
On 2015-12-30 17:35, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Ada supports signed and unsigned integer types.
Not quite. Ada has integer types (with overflow exceptions) and modular
types (ring N arithmetic).
Modular types with power of two modulo is what people mean when they
talk about "unsigned integer" types. E.g.
type Unsigned_16 is mod 2**16;
> I couldn't find any
> rules on how mixed-sign arithmetic is done (but that doesn't mean there
> aren't any).
There is no such rules. Since Ada is a strongly typed language, you just
cannot mix types. You need an explicit type conversion to the type of
another operand in order to use its arithmetical operation. (You can
define mixed types operations of your own, if you wish)
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 20:31 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-12-29 21:20 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-29 23:13 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-29 22:19 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 09:56 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 13:28 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 14:55 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:32 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:17 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:01 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 15:48 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 16:35 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-12-30 18:19 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 17:39 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:26 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> - 2015-12-30 18:32 +0100
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 19:55 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-12-30 20:15 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-12-30 22:00 +0000
Re: Here is why C++ and C are bad... Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-12-31 10:16 +1300
csiph-web