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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MSGID_RANDY
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5265ce03ee8f5252
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-07 08:15:24 PST
Path: 
 supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.infoave.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp2.deja.com!nnrp1.deja.com!not-for-mail
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ok sorry, it is just a book gives no feedback.
Date: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 15:56:59 GMT
Organization: Deja.com
Message-ID: <93a3k8$m08$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
References: <t4ug0qb63j7e4e@corp.supernews.co.uk>
 <931r2l$4ai5t$2@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <931t08$5u5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <932632$e0e$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <932an8$ijs$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <93421h$2ju$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <934j5c$eu9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <ZZq56.1574$xo3.422321@homer.alpha.net> <86hf3c5ure.fsf@acm.org>
 <937vl0$5gs$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <86snmvv79k.fsf@acm.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14
X-Article-Creation-Date: Sun Jan 07 15:56:59 2001 GMT
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; U)
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x70.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:3751
Date: 2001-01-07T15:56:59+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <86snmvv79k.fsf@acm.org>,
  Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org> wrote:
> I think the language designers did not realize this, at least
> that's what I infer from reactions when I posted this trick
> circa 1995 (IIRC) in comp.lang.ada.

Actually you can find uses of this in the GNAT run-time going
way back, and indeed it is much older than that, since DEC
Ada 83 always supported this capability, and the DEC test suite
contains a number of tests that use this capability to bypass
compiler checking that would defeat the test purpose (related
to the optimization point that LG made).

>
> In the "break everything" area you also have stream based
> code which does all sorts of "unchecked" stuff without having
> "unchecked" in its
> name (well it's obvious, but it breaks the "grep Unchecked"
> rule ;-).

But that's really no different from Sequential_IO ...


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/