Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers

[Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>]

Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> See, this is why you are a troll. RM 10.1.4(5) is completely clear on 
> this issue.

Not at all. That section just says that when something is compiled,
it needs to see a consistent set of the things it depends on. What
you are talking about is found in 10.1.4(7), as an implementation
*permission*. That section says that when something is compiled, an
implementation may remove its dependents from the environment. But
that is a permission, not a requirement, and is clearly suboptimal
with respect to avoiding recompilations.

> Let's see.  You pretend to be an expert on Ada.  And every time you open 
> your mouth in this newsgroup you reveal the depths of your ignorance.

I have never claimed to be an expert in Ada. On the contrary, I
have quite often prefaced my remarks with "I don't know Ada, but..."
On the other hand, I do not believe that you are correct about my
postings. I think you are defensively overreacting to perceived
slights against your favorite language.

> But you may have noticed that if I make a mistake in a posting 
> here I acknowledge it gracefully.  You need to learn how to do that.

Many of the discussions we have here revolve around different
interpertations of the same facts, so that it's seldom clear
that someone has made a mistake. I apologize for implying that
all Ada implementations had "horrible" recompilation issues,
but I think that it's unquestionable that at least some did,
and in such a way that "days-long" recompilations became a
very public and visible issue for Ada.