From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 23 Sep 93 13:33:32 GMT
From: news.crd.ge.com!e7sa!groleau@uunet.uu.net  (Wes Groleau x1240 C73-8)
Subject: Re: LRM 11.6 changing behavior (was: Bug in AdaEd???)
Message-ID: <CDt6zx.324@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Give me a break!

  If I INTENDED to raise an exception, I would normally use a "raise"
statement. 

But it may not always be obvious to a programmer using objects
from another package or even someone else's work in the same unit, that
a particular statement will always raise a predefined statement.  But
even if he/she KNEW it, it is not reasonable for a compiler to NOT raise
the exception.  One of the many purposes of exceptions is to inform programmers
that they did something they shouldn't have.  Some people are now interpreting
LRM 11.6 to mean "If you do write code that the compiler vendor thinks you
shouldn't, the compiler vendor has the right to pretend you didn't." 
I normally try to avoid starting or encouraging flame wars, but I can't 
resist saying, "I don't believe the LRM writers intended anything so stupid."

Wes G.