Re: GNAT and NT DLL; An Ada-Comment resignation

[Craig Carey <research@ada95.ijs.co.nz>]

On 9 Jan 2002 18:10:27 -0800, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) wrote:

>Vim Pine 44 <research@ada95.ijs.co.nz> wrote in message news:<vu4m3u8dtigdb5d0vusq4qkur72uibicnd@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 16:19:41 GMT, Ted Dennison wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Below I quote some of the latest messages sent to the Ada-Comment
>> mailing list, of R. R. Software's Mr Brukardt. This covers the events
>> leading up to the about-to-occur unsubscribing of Mr R.
>> Dewar.
>
>
>Just for the record, the subject of this thread is either
>confused or deliberately misleading. My decision to unsubscribe has
>nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion of GNAT and DLL stuff. By
>the way resign is a ludicrous term, this is simply a mailing list to
                                     ^
                                     that Ada-Comment list

>which people may voluntarily subscribe and unsubscribe. For
...


Thanks for correcting me on that. 

I would not have used the word resign if I had of paused longer over
the wording of the Subject field.

While the Subject is inaccurate it fails to say who it is about. So it
might not be misleading at all. In the body of the message, though I
named you, the mistake of using that word was fixed.

You suggested that the public could worsen the public Ada compiler by
putting in Eiffel pre and post conditions. A problem with it is that
the language is trying to get the programmer to use 2 tests per
procedure when the knowledge at hand may allow only 0, 1, or 3 tests.
So that Eiffelism would not be a part of Ada or Aonix Ada, but it
might be part of GNAT. This Ada takes a long time to learn before
people can get experienced with the reasoning. E.g. the number 2 is
not especially important.

I would like to have a look at our GNAT compiler (Richard's while I
am referring to that other thread), and see if I can get a - \ | / -
feature in. Just something like this:

package Lucid is
   procedure R (A : Integer; B : in out Integer; C : out Integer);
   ...
begin
   R (/A, |B, \C);  --  syntax checked and it shows which passes in
                    --  and out. They are optional unless a
                    --  directive says otherwise.

   /Q(12) := \F;    --  Not allowed since strange and not informative

end Lucid;

An advantage of that is the clarity each time the procedure is
called. 


---



Craig Carey