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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7d14d8f47ca035bf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-04-05 14:25:23 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!falcon.america.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!isdnet!psinet-france!psiuk-f4!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Generic vs. C++ Templates Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2001 17:04:08 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9aimk9$h99$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <3AC8E799.189EE51C@bigfoot.com> <3ACA4A12.9FC665D5@bigfoot.com> <3ACBBE65.D65BB767@worldnet.att.net><9ahv88$99b$1@nh.pace.co.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: 136.170.200.133 X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 986504649 17705 136.170.200.133 (5 Apr 2001 21:04:09 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 5 Apr 2001 21:04:09 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:6533 Date: 2001-04-05T21:04:09+00:00 List-Id: I don't know why the actual hardware would have to be limited at all. The implementation is pretty much free to define what parts of the actual hardware it wants to utilize, isn't it? I recall Ada implementations that did not take advantage of all the address space that may have been available to them, so why couldn't an implementation limit its address space to one byte? (Or just enough bytes to write "Program Error!" onto the screen?) Worse comes to worse, I go off and invent "Marin's Virtual Machine" that executes "Marin's Byte Code" - which has the quality of a very, very, limited instruction set & memory. Of course, there are other ways of building an unusable compiler by properly defining implementation defined limits. How about a line length of 1? Or zero? Its a silly notion, but only brought up to illustrate that a legal implementation of Ada can be totally useless. Why wouldn't it (legally speaking) pass validation? It would produce correct results, would it not? (In the sense that all programs would result in an outcome that is legal within the definition of the language.) Practically speaking, I'm sure that the keepers of the validation suite would have better things to do than waste their time getting into the Guinness Book Of World Records for validating the world's most useless compiler. But that's not the same thing as saying there is a technical, legal reason why such a compiler wouldn't pass. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com Web: http://www.mcondic.com/ "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wccsnjnjdev.fsf@world.std.com... > Yes, it's perfectly legal (presuming the target machine really is that > limited). > > But no, it won't get validated. >