🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6495210.84230.22474@kcbbs.gen.nz>, martin@kcbbs.gen.nz (Martin Kealey) writes
--> BTW: Has anyone considered that under and specification-based extended integer
--> range (such as proposed by Frank Farance), it is possible simply to say
-->
-->      typedef int fast exact:1 logical_t;

..but conceptually a Boolean is not the same as an integer in the range 0..1!

...plus I'm a bit worried how these new ways of specifying integers would interact
with overloading.  The set of integer types becomes quite large. 

(Perhaps a built-in way of doing the equivalent of Ada's "T: type := new INTEGER"
(or however it goes) with T becoming overloadable-on would help.  I've often
felt the need to say (e.g.) "a priority is an integer (but it's not compatible
with a time-interval -- even though that's also an integer".  Of course, one can
do this already in C++, even if it's a bit tedious.)

-- jP --