> For Strings:(It is slightly confusing, I think, to say that in a
> -- 'A' is a zero length string, A'Last = 0, and
> -- put_line ( A ( A'First .. A'Last ) ) ;
> -- does not raise an Constraint_Error even though in
> -- this case it translate to:
> -- put_line ( A ( 0 .. 0 ) ) ;
> A : String := "" ;
> Since you can have zero length string , the index is Natual instead of Positive,
type String is array (Positive range <>) of Character;
the index type is Natural. It's not Natural in the Ada sense;
> Always use standards, those who do not are the one making the mistakesHow is it possible for _any_ implementation defined type
> that others must correct to make the program portable during updating.
to be portable just because the standard says it is
implementation defined? (Like Standard.Integer?)
For example, the GNU Ada Database Environment uses a 64 bit
type SQLBIGINT is range -(2 ** 63) .. +(2 ** 63) - 1;
How will a subtype of Long_Long_Integer be different?
Using a subtype, there is more opportunity for
Any Ada compiler can immediately decide whether or not this
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.