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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b7d3a51d0d8b6ee X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!news.k-dsl.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!not-for-mail From: Stefan Bellon Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Extending discriminant types Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:18:25 +0100 Organization: Comp.Center (RUS), U of Stuttgart, FRG Message-ID: <20081122011825.5354d1c1@cube.tz.axivion.com> References: <20081115101632.5f98c596@cube.tz.axivion.com> <4d75603c-2f61-46c9-8c62-df4b6f49b2f7@13g2000yql.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: infosun2.rus.uni-stuttgart.de 1227313106 15471 129.69.226.25 (22 Nov 2008 00:18:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: news@news.uni-stuttgart.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2008 00:18:26 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 3.5.0 (GTK+ 2.12.11; i486-pc-linux-gnu) X-URL: http://www.axivion.com/ Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:3718 Date: 2008-11-22T01:18:25+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 21 Nov, anon wrote: > This type of statement works with GNAT-3.15p, even in GNAT-3.01 as > well as GNAT-3.12. All which are GNAT compilers that use the Ada 95 > specification. That's just too many compilers and programmers > testing for Adacore over a period of 5 to 10 years to be a design > flaw in one version of a compiler. And that does not include the > 100s to 1000s of GCC people and students with the general public > added in that have tested possible every combination of every type of > statement (may be to general but you get the idea). The odds that > this type of statement not being found until now and at least written > up, is astronautical. Are you trying to say that GNAT 3.15p must have been a BUG FREE compiler because lots of people have used it for a very long time, so that each possible combination of statements MUST HAVE been encountered by someone? Are you serious? You know that it just takes someone to name one known bug in GNAT 3.15p to prove you wrong? I once reported two bugs related to negation on a value of a private type whose full view is a modular type (and then either producing wrong results or crashing GNAT depending whether the modulus was a basis of two or not). That was with GNAT 5.04. You could argue that those kind of problems must have been spotted years ago, but fact is, they weren't. -- Stefan Bellon