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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 2002:a24:36c1:: with SMTP id l184-v6mr128399itl.48.1523284606171; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 07:36:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a9d:e5b:: with SMTP id n27-v6mr2118723otd.2.1523284605785; Mon, 09 Apr 2018 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.uzoreto.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!k65-v6no1995291ita.0!news-out.google.com!u64-v6ni4150itb.0!nntp.google.com!e130-v6no130736itb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 07:36:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=47.185.233.194; posting-account=zwxLlwoAAAChLBU7oraRzNDnqQYkYbpo NNTP-Posting-Host: 47.185.233.194 References: <1b44444f-c1b3-414e-84fb-8798961487c3@googlegroups.com> <62ee0aac-49da-4925-b9aa-a16695b3fc45@googlegroups.com> <9879872e-c18a-4667-afe5-41ce0f54559f@googlegroups.com> <80db2d05-744f-4201-ba1b-4436f8040491@googlegroups.com> <59f9ab6d-d6ba-45ff-a6f0-c5699983d9e8@googlegroups.com> <1a390e22-f49f-4028-8e58-ca4d0f51e4b6@googlegroups.com> <8fca2fed-2721-48dc-95e5-5b98e7c1fa70@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <51392e2f-aab5-4d76-8f39-86d3a61c8038@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Interesting article on ARG work From: "Dan'l Miller" Injection-Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2018 14:36:46 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51413 Date: 2018-04-09T07:36:45-07:00 List-Id: 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 onl= y the absence of the @-code will be compiled in the most-exemplary implemen= tation, leaving the other uncompiled variant to bit-rot uncompiled for exte= nded periods of time. > >> > >> I didn't say that. > >=20 > > Oh yes you did by examples, where you (and even enlisting the late Ichb= iah at one point) give examples of bit-rot where some unwise programmer of = @-code left a presence/absence branch of the @-code uncompilable hencefort= h. Your examples were clearly making the case that Mr. Unwise Programmer w= as 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 t= hat Mr. Unwise Programmer cavalierly failed to test-build, but that the nex= t beleaguered programmer would need to rectify upon building with @-code ab= sent. Your entire premise was based on the mistaken claim that the build-t= ime 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 upfro= nt in his face. Let us look at 2 of those examples: > >=20 > > Dmitry wrote on 08 April 2018: > >> More complicated rules are required for declarations, e.g. that > >> conditionally declared entities would not be visible outside condition= al > >> code: > >> > >> declare > >> @ X : Integer; > >> Y : Integer; > >> begin > >> Y :=3D X; -- This is illegal > >> @ Y :=3D X; -- This is OK > >> end; > >> > >> or > >> > >> @ with Text_IO; > >> use Text_IO; -- No, that does not work >=20 > Both examples present would be illegal code. What is your point? To have= =20 > 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=E2=80=94eithe= r via GLR, GLL, or brute-force invoking the compiler twice, once with and o= nce without @-code. Assuming that you read at all before posting, my point= now is becoming: methinks something else is going on here with you, Dmitr= y.