From: ken@minster.york.ac.uk
Subject: Re: "silly" (?) Ada semantics
Date: 5 Jun 90 09:54:43 GMT [thread overview]
Message-ID: <644579683.25696@minster.york.ac.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 1919@sparko.gwu.edu
In article <1919@sparko.gwu.edu> mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu (Michael Feldman) writes:
>constraint_error would be raised at execution time. What is the point
>about the "silly" semantics: that the compiler should treat it as fatal?
>Well, OK, maybe it should. As a teacher of compiler construction, I know
>well that the question of what to treat as a fatal error is really a
>matter of taste. Let's not turn this into a religious thing, OK?
It's not a matter of taste for the _compiler vendor_. They _must_
compile it because it is legal Ada! It's not the fact that the compiler
spotted it - all Ada compilers I've seen spotted it! They all have to
generate code, which always generates a constrant error.
I thought Ada was targetted at high integrity mission critical
software? Is it a good idea to defer errors to run-time? I remember
being told by a FORTRAN diehard that the language was OK because a good
compiler spotted all the bad bits and warned the user. Great.
Ken
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1990-06-05 9:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1990-06-02 21:08 "silly" (?) Ada semantics Michael Feldman
1990-06-05 9:54 ` ken [this message]
1990-06-06 16:09 ` Michael Feldman
1990-06-06 22:27 ` Robert I. Eachus
1990-06-07 14:32 ` Michael Feldman
1990-06-06 18:12 ` Robert I. Eachus
1990-06-07 17:27 ` stt
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox