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: 103376,37b5f16b9be86fec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: William Clodius Subject: Re: ada -> C translator Date: 1997/04/08 Message-ID: <334A6A98.6231@lanl.gov>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 231576697 References: <33436B29.41C6@sema-grenoble.fr> <5i243c$i1h@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5i4jok$qiq@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5i9r5t$nb6@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> <5idcjq$8lh@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU> Organization: Los Alamos National Lab Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-08T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > You are still thinking in terms of conventional C generated by humans. > Sorry -- wrong level of thinking, not applicable here! > Do not assume that Fergus is thinking of C generated by humans. When you assume that you argue from an invalid position. This assumption leads to statements that imply that it is always impractical to include conditional compilation for C generated by a machine. Further, other valid statements that you make will often be ignored or misunderstood, due to the buttons such a statement will push. Fergus works all the time with C generated automatically by a compiler to C that takes into account the dependencies of a variety of systems, and is well aware that machine generated C that includes conditional compilation directives is a practical solution for many cases. The problem is not whether the code is machine or human generated, but whether for Ada in particular the complexity becomes impractical. -- William B. Clodius Phone: (505)-665-9370 Los Alamos Nat. Lab., NIS-2 FAX: (505)-667-3815 PO Box 1663, MS-C323 Group office: (505)-667-5776 Los Alamos, NM 87545 Email: wclodius@lanl.gov