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: 103376,5752ba976f4dad11
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: lga@sma.ch (-Laurent Gasser)
Subject: Re: GNAT 3.01 Source For OS/2
Date: 1996/04/30
Message-ID: <4m4v9fINNr1@maz4.sma.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 152241444
distribution: world
references: <dewar.830621366@schonberg>
organization: Swiss Meteorological Institute
reply-to: lga@sma.ch
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-04-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article 830621366@schonberg, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> ... For instance, our standard
> options for compiling the compiler are -gnatap (assertions on, range
> checking off). We turn range checking off because it is our experience
> that with assertions on, the range checking does not find additional
> real errors, but has been known to cause problems (as appears to be
> the case in your build).

I am quite surprised to hear it.  To me, Ada meant higher quality in code
due to more internal checking.  And you purposely turn these checks out!

Could it be possible to apply to GNAT the very rules we are all trying to 
defend in favor of Ada? (Higher safety due to more automatic checkings.)

Laurent Gasser (lga@sma.ch)
Computers do not solve problems, they execute solutions.