Re: Yet another gnat bug

[George Shapovalov <gshapovalov@gmail.com>]

On Tuesday, February 5, 2019 at 9:37:17 PM UTC+1, Simon Wright wrote:
> The AdaCore people working on FSF GCC are the same people working on the
> 'upstream' product, which is why I've never thought of it like that; but
> I see your point.
Oh, so they do have people working on gcc directly? Nice!
Sure, that makes total sense (for a company that essentially sells a gcc-based compiler). But unfortunately this rarely happens in reality.
AdaCore seems like a real nice company! (A bit of praise never hearts, but seriously, thanks to AdaCore people for nice work overall!)

> > But to the credit of AdaCore, they react quickly - I already got a
> > confirmation that they got it and will look into it..
> 
> It helps if they know you!
Maybe, but then I on;y saw them once in a person, and that likely were other people.. 
But more importantly, this particular issue seems to be a general omission affecting gnat universally, that would affect all kinds of users. I am just puzzled how this thing was not triggered before by at least some users? Is nobody fond of trying to lay out their types in the most abstract way possible? That *does* force better design and ends up saving quite a bit of work down the road (to the point of coding becoming really boring after the general structure is in and successfully compiled by gnat). Well, I guess people just always write "is abstract" even where "is null" would make more sense (or that not many people mix generics and OOP abstraction)..