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=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,
	FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5f9c25380ec58962
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Received: by 10.68.73.229 with SMTP id o5mr8576785pbv.7.1326749394814;
        Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni189913pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <see.my.homepage@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Elaboration circularity with generics
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 13:29:54 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <2ffd449a-2eee-4127-8cdb-7c42bcfd9e60@a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>
References: <583b1bfe-95bd-4669-b16b-c733c81e8f88@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>
 <1007811599348271064.048391rm-host.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <9e273746-1663-4fef-9154-f37a25d3c01b@o13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>
 <wccd3ajaf7f.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.3.40.82
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1326749394 25396 127.0.0.1 (16 Jan 2012 21:29:54
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:29:54 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: a40g2000vbu.googlegroups.com; posting-host=83.3.40.82;
 posting-account=bMuEOQoAAACUUr_ghL3RBIi5neBZ5w_S
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESNKRC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101203 Firefox/3.6.13,gzip(gfe)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2012-01-16T13:29:54-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jan 16, 3:34=A0pm, Robert A Duff <bobd...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
wrote:

> > In such a case I would consider it to be a compiler bug.
>
> I don't see any compiler bug here.

What I'm concerned about is portability. If the compiler is allowed to
refuse my program even though there is no paragraph saying that my
program is illegal, then perhaps some other compiler will compile it
without any trouble. Which means that my program will not be portable,
even though it might not touch any implementation limits or other
similarly valid reasons.

--
Maciej Sobczak * http://www.msobczak.com * http://www.inspirel.com