From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,6327f05d4989a68d
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.198.196 with SMTP id ep4mr12812193qab.3.1356641671123;
        Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:54:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.71.169 with SMTP id w9mr4805612qeu.7.1356641671088; Thu, 27
 Dec 2012 12:54:31 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 k2ni3151qap.0!nntp.google.com!ee4no2609103qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 12:54:30 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <kbia4b$srn$1@speranza.aioe.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.153.58.182;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.153.58.182
References: <kbg9bp$a72$1@munin.nbi.dk> <kbia4b$srn$1@speranza.aioe.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0a1886ee-c97a-4deb-8794-aebdca379493@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: compilers, was Re: Press Release - Ada 2012 Language Standard
 Approved by ISO
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 20:54:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2012-12-27T12:54:30-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Thursday, December 27, 2012 2:12:59 PM UTC-6, tmo...@acm.org wrote:
> > I realize that the quality of proof needed to make this work might be
> > beyond the state-of-the-art today, but I doubt that will be the case by
> > the time a new version of Ada is defined.
>     I thought compilers were getting wider - handling more constructs -
> rather than deeper - more analysis and optimization.  Is that not the case?

I think that that is dependent on the language you're talking about, or in MS's case [sometimes] the platform (.NET)... and that's a C-ish language.

But then again, Ada's always been more for early-error detection -- static/compile-time checking is the earliest point the compiler can point out an error in our program-text.

In that vein I like Randy's suggestion (though I think an OR separated list would be better than a comma separated list); I absolutely agree that there needs to be a facility for naming a 'set' of exceptions.

The implementation shouldn't be too hard in the case of user-defined exceptions: the most difficult part would be recognizing that the following doesn't raise CONSTRAINT_ERROR (more correctly propagate):

  Type LString is Access String;

  -- Returns true when the strings are equal or both parameters are null.
  Function "=" (Left, Right: IN LString) Return Boolean is
     Subtype Constrained_LString is Not Null LString;

     Function "="( Left : LString; Right : String ) Return Boolean is
     begin
        Return Right = Left.All;
     exception
        When CONSTRAINT_ERROR => Return False;
     end "=";

  Begin
     Return "="(Left, Right.All);
  Exception
     When CONSTRAINT_ERROR =>
        begin
           Return "="(Right,Left.All);
        Exception
           When CONSTRAINT_ERROR => Return True;
        end;
  End "=";

-- Yes, it is horrid abuse of exceptions... but it'll work even in Ada 83.