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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID 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: csampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson) Subject: Re: Elaboration_check For Instantiations Date: 1997/10/30 Message-ID: <1997Oct30.224738.20817@nosc.mil>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 286039405 Sender: news@nosc.mil References: <1997Oct23.205254.25272@nosc.mil> <878068940.763599@wagasa.cts.com> <1997Oct28.221806.2805@nosc.mil> <34573CCF.4DE4@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> Organization: Computer Sciences Corporation Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <34573CCF.4DE4@pseserv3.fw.hac.com>, W. Wesley Groleau x4923 wrote: >> ..... However, I have >> never been happy as a programmer when a compiler says, "I'm smarter >> than you are and I'm not going to allow you to do what you want." > >This is the argument many C programmers use against Ada. ... Yes, it's the same argument, but the effect is quite different. Once I've accepted the limitations imposed by a language, I don't want the compiler imposing additional ones. It seems to me that this thread has progressed to the point where it is no longer particularly meaningful in comp.lang.ada. Ada compilers are not going to do any second guessing because the language definition won't allow them. Certainly the Ada 95 compilers I've been exposed to, GNAT among them, were correct in their handling of the particular issue I mistakenly complained about in starting the thread. Charlie -- ****** If my user name appears as "csampson", remove the 'c' to get my correct e-mail address.