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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,bd40601768eaf8fd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Array of Variant Records Question...
Date: 1999/09/09
Message-ID: <7r8srm$olc$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 523022532
References: <7r5vh3$imu1@svlss.lmms.lmco.com> <37d6a45c@news1.prserv.net>
 <eExB3.6$ZR.1146@news.wenet.net> <37d6ccb6@news1.prserv.net>
 <7r77i8$i08$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <37d7c116@news1.prserv.net>
 <37d7d2ff@news1.prserv.net>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x32.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Thu Sep 09 18:04:49 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-09-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <37d7d2ff@news1.prserv.net>,
  "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> 8) T'Class or types that aren't tagged.

Again, a feature in mapping document 2, very controversial,
bit the dust. Basic arguments against this are that

  a) it would cause significant changes in the RM (ho ho,
     that was back in the days when we fooled ourselves
     into thinking this would not happen anyway).

  b) it seemed to open up too big a door in the typing model,
     and that is still a valid objection. However, this is
     definitely a reasonable item to rediscuss.

> 9) Controlled-ness applied to access types directly.

  Shrug, no opinion, seems unimportant to me.

> 10) For GNAT to implement pragma Restrictions
(Max_Task_Entries => 0), so
> that it can generate a more efficient RTS.

  The latest version of GNAT on some targets implements a
  restricted run time that roughly corresponds to the Ravenscar
  model, since this seems to be what people want. There is no
  likelihood of doing JUST the above case, since so far there
  is no demand.

> 11) For GNAT to really implement Suspension_Objects, instead
of just
> implementing them as a protected type.

  Our approach here is to optimize simple protected types.
  SO's as such are not of particular interest to us.

> 12) For ACT to port GNAT to LinuxPPC.

  We have in fact done an experimental version of this port, and
  it is being beta tested now. No commitments for the future
  support of this port have been made, but it is a good guess
  that it will become real sometime in the future.

> 13) For me to win US$1_000_000 in the lottery.

  Sorry, for this you have to be a supported customer :-) :-)
  (a lucky one!)

Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.