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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6f7b92fd11ab291 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-21 08:14:25 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!priapus.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!ash.uu.net!spool.news.uu.net!not-for-mail Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 11:14:23 -0400 From: Hyman Rosen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030611 Thunderbird/0.1a X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers References: <3F158832.1040206@attbi.com> <1058378673.35463@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1058390613.119827@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <2OERa.4718$0F4.3216@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <1058539398.178565@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F18D647.9020505@attbi.com> <3F1B207B.6090308@attbi.com> In-Reply-To: <3F1B207B.6090308@attbi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: KBC Financial Products Message-ID: <1058800464.63505@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Cache-Post-Path: master.nyc.kbcfp.com!unknown@nightcrawler.nyc.kbcfp.com X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/) NNTP-Posting-Host: 204.253.250.10 X-Trace: 1058800464 2095 204.253.250.10 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40557 Date: 2003-07-21T11:14:23-04:00 List-Id: 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.