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=1.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_WORDY,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,184737148aef02ac
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com>
Subject: Re: Building a compiler (was: Fixed point multiplication ambiguity)
Date: 1999/02/02
Message-ID: <7982p8$nll$2@plug.news.pipex.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 439963711
References: <78r4qh$fcu$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
 <F6AwFx.76y.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> <78sojm$crk$1@plug.news.pipex.net>
 <78tlmt$jte$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Organization: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views of UUNET
 WorldCom)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

It's not a problem of semantics, but of compiler speed. Users are tolerant,
but they don't like it when the compiler hasn't finished by the time they've
got back from the loo ;-)

There will be some (rare) examples of code where searching a context for
valid interpretations will have to cover a very large number of possible
interpretations (the 'search space'). This could take a long time, and
disappoint the user as suggested above.

You could, of course, say to the user "don't use such weird code", but then
the user could always say "no, I'll just use somebody else's compiler!" :-)

Nick

robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<78tlmt$jte$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
[...]
|What problem are you trying to solve, I don't see any
|problem in implementing the proper semantics here!