Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> OK. But given the ability to pick the number of bits you want, you can 
> implement the rest as a mere library.

If your language syntax is flexible enough to allow such a specification, 
yes, that works. Ada also selectively enforces the ranges, optimizes based 
on the ranges, and allows you to declare (for example) arrays whose index is 
based on such a type. Oh, and pack such things into the minimum number of 
bits needed if you have an array of such things. (The canonical example 
being reading a FAT-formatted floppy FAT directly into a packed array of 
0..4095 integers.) Sure, if your language supports that sort of thing as a 
library, you can do it that way, but then you're *way* over the complexity 
of putting it in the compiler.

I'm just saying that I prefer declarations of the form "I need a variable to 
hold these following application-specific values" than saying "first, figure 
out what machine type will hold these application-specific values, then use 
that type."  That latter step really ought to be done by the compiler, IMO.

  >>> *Everything* with GNU in the name sucks on Windows!
>>
>> The CLI stuff isn't too bad. Of course, it's hard to screw up something
>> like md5sum.
> 
> Oh how ironic that you should pick md5sum - the one console application 
> that I've struggled with to find a working Win32 version!

This doesn't work? http://unxutils.sourceforge.net/

> Well, yeah. But I mean, you can make it grok stuff that doesn't look 
> like algebra; it's flexible enough to do that.

Fair enough. :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
  "How did he die?"   "He got shot in the hand."
     "That was fatal?"
          "He was holding a live grenade at the time."

Post a reply to this message