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,ffdd4d59cbfb4caf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@mundook.cs.mu.OZ.AU (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Ada 95 Numerics questions for the experts Date: 1997/09/02 Message-ID: <5ug6oa$qna@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 269479653 References: Organization: Comp Sci, University of Melbourne Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >Tuck said > >> Going beyond the RM is not always in the customer's interest, >> as they may have to move to another Ada compiler at some point, and >> one of the goals of standardization is portability between implementations. > >Tuck says "follow the recomendations" here where he means "follow the >minimal requirements". There is a big difference. ... >Yes, as Tuck says, if your primary concern is that code written for your >compiler be easy to move to other compilers, then you implement the >minimal lower bound. But if, as in the case of GNAT, your primary goal >is to be inclusive, and correctly process code from other existing >compilers providing a wide range of functionality that is permitted by >the RM, but not required, or recommended against, then you implement >the maximum. Does GNAT have an option to warn about the use of non-portable constructs such as the ones discussed in this thread? -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.