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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,55f243f32a97dc7e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Elaboration_check For Instantiations
Date: 1997/10/30
Message-ID: <1997Oct30.061225.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 286739402
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <1997Oct23.205254.25272@nosc.mil> <dewar.877998104@merv>
 <1997Oct28.192057.29122@nosc.mil> <878068940.763599@wagasa.cts.com>
 <1997Oct28.221806.2805@nosc.mil> <34573CCF.4DE4@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>
 <345774b3.1434102@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 878209949 5837 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <345774b3.1434102@SantaClara01.news.InterNex.Net>, tmoran@bix.com (Tom Moran) writes:

>   Unless the compiler is buggy, the fact it won't allow something the
> programmer wrote is proof the programmer either did not understand the
> language or made a mistake writing it.  So the compiler has
> demonstrated that it is, in fact, smarter than the programmer. ;)

The compiler is not smarter, it is just better at adapting to new
behavior when it is corrected for the next version.