Re: Interesting article on ARG work

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 9:13:26 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 15:40, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> >> On 09/04/2018 05:50, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> >>
> >>> I am saying that you are 100% incorrect that only the presence or only the absence of the @-code will be compiled in the most-exemplary implementation, leaving the other uncompiled variant to bit-rot uncompiled for extended periods of time.
> >>
> >> I didn't say that.
> > 
> > Oh yes you did by examples, where you (and even enlisting the late Ichbiah at one point) give examples of bit-rot where some unwise programmer of @-code left a presence/absence branch of  the @-code uncompilable henceforth.  Your examples were clearly making the case that Mr. Unwise Programmer was going to stink up the codebase with @-code that was compiled only with @-code present that would break in would-be builds where @-code was absent that Mr. Unwise Programmer cavalierly failed to test-build, but that the next beleaguered programmer would need to rectify upon building with @-code absent.  Your entire premise was based on the mistaken claim that the build-time would not build both presence and absence of the @-code in one shot to show Mr. Unwise Programmer the error of his ways right then and there upfront in his face.  Let us look at 2 of those examples:
> > 
> > Dmitry wrote on 08 April 2018:
> >> More complicated rules are required for declarations, e.g. that
> >> conditionally declared entities would not be visible outside conditional
> >> code:
> >>
> >> declare
> >> @  X : Integer;
> >>      Y : Integer;
> >> begin
> >>      Y := X; -- This is illegal
> >> @  Y := X; -- This is OK
> >> end;
> >>
> >> or
> >>
> >> @ with Text_IO;
> >> use Text_IO; -- No, that does not work
> 
> Both examples present would be illegal code. What is your point? To have 
> it legal?

I have already answered that completely in my prior replies:  an exemplary implementation would compile both sides of the @-code presence and absence to reveal to Mr. Unwise Programmer his uncouthness right away—either via GLR, GLL, or brute-force invoking the compiler twice, once with and once without @-code.  Assuming that you read at all before posting, my point now is becoming:  methinks something else is going on here with you, Dmitry.