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=BAYES_00,FORGED_MUA_MOZILLA autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,ab1d177a5a26577d X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8 Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr10244261pbb.5.1317791589361; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 22:13:09 -0700 (PDT) Path: lh7ni11869pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: What's wrong with C++? Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2011 07:13:16 +0200 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: <9f27b2FsgsU1@mid.individual.net> References: <1ee1a434-4048-48f6-9f5e-d8126bebb808@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: individual.net sQAaEopKdZ2E2tL/wfpNegh6Fpmfdx1GswQsaSKvUqv7jYAMJ/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:VcKC82G2VQ8vOi3c+pCqgoMjcXA= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:6.0.2) Gecko/20110902 Thunderbird/6.0.2 In-Reply-To: Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18305 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2011-10-05T07:13:16+02:00 List-Id: On 11-10-05 04:13 , Yannick DuchĂȘne (Hibou57) wrote: > Le Wed, 05 Oct 2011 03:53:28 +0200, Peter C. Chapin > a Ă©crit: >> I don't think this is a big deal. It's an interesting theoretical >> observation with little practical significance. > Bad theoretical background is no good (at least, it matters to me, to > me, it is a base of trustability). Doesn't Ada have a similar theoretical problem with the elaboration order? I seem to remember that finding a valid elaboration order for an arbitrary Ada program is rather difficult, in general, and compilers are allowed to give up on it. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .