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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdaisy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
From: ndiamond@watdaisy.UUCP (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: net.lang.ada
Subject: Re: validation stringency
Message-ID: <7058@watdaisy.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 13:01:14 EST
Article-I.D.: watdaisy.7058
Posted: Tue Mar 12 13:01:14 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 13-Mar-85 00:10:34 EST
References: <453@harvard.ARPA>
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> I recently came across a limitation on how complicated a type
> declaration pcc will accept.

Yuk.  OK, I guess a portable C program can't nest type declarations more than
one level?

> I don't remember any similar
> nesting restrictions in the Ada standard.  Are Ada implementations
> required to allow unlimited nesting?  Does the validation suite
> make some sort of attempt to check this?
> -- Rich

I also believe that unlimited nesting ability is required.  But if the
compiler runs on a machine with a limited address space (either real or
virtual, it is limited), we can expect some limits.  If a limit is too
small, a reasonable validation suite would find out.  If a validation
suite tried a thorough test, we probably wouldn't live long enough to
see it hit a limit....
-- 

   Norman Diamond

UUCP:  {decvax|utzoo|ihnp4|allegra}!watmath!watdaisy!ndiamond
CSNET: ndiamond%watdaisy@waterloo.csnet
ARPA:  ndiamond%watdaisy%waterloo.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa

"Opinions are those of the keyboard, and do not reflect on me or higher-ups."