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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,63360011f8addace
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-07-20 04:52:38 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: gnat: time-slicing
Date: 20 Jul 2002 04:52:38 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0207200352.5dec769f@posting.google.com>
References: <pan.2002.07.15.10.24.43.431977.7868@gmx.net>
 <5ee5b646.0207161329.5c8e387b@posting.google.com>
 <pan.2002.07.17.18.15.32.366460.1723@gmx.net> <uit3ee23b.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <pan.2002.07.17.20.38.35.826272.1851@gmx.net>
 <ujbgt7p7ft4o17@corp.supernews.com>
 <pan.2002.07.17.21.38.14.849546.1934@gmx.net> <ah4i85$n80$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <YO$4QirEkuiT@eisner.encompasserve.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.240
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1027165958 26366 127.0.0.1 (20 Jul 2002 11:52:38
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Jul 2002 11:52:38 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:27270
Date: 2002-07-20T11:52:38+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:<YO$4QirEkuiT@eisner.encompasserve.org>...

> Or unless you have a guarantee from the Ada implementation or the
> operating system in that regard.

In my view it is dubious for an Ada implementation to guarantee the
behavior of an erroneous program, and it is even more dubious for
a program to rely on such a guarantee. No competent Ada programmer
should ever write erroneous code except in very rare and very well
documented situations, and even there it is almost always better to
find another solution.

For example, if you write erroneous code, a new version of the compiler
may change the behavior, and you have no basis to complain. Moreover
if you have to port the code to another compiler you can get into very
nasty trouble. It is one thing to rely on implementation defined
behavior (which can of course also cause portability difficulties,
but of a much better defined kind) and quite another to rely on
erroneous code.