Re: LRM 11.6 changing behavior (was: Bug in AdaEd???)

[att!att-out!cbnewsl!willett@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (david.c.willett)]

>From article <CDt6zx.324@crdnns.crd.ge.com>, by groleau@e7sa.crd.ge.com (Wes G
roleau x1240 C73-8):
> 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 programme
rs
> that they did something they shouldn't have.  Some people are now interpretin
g
> 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.

Consider that many documents, the US Constitution comes to mind, were 
interpreted by later "users" in ways their authors probably didn't imagine.
I haven' been following this thread, so you may be absolutely right, but 
the idea of compiler writers "loosely" interpreting the LRM doesn't seem
so far-fetched to me.

After all, what do we pay AJPO for?  

:^).....It's a joke folks, I'm only kidding..... :^)


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dave Willett          AT&T Federal Systems Advanced Technologies

Remember Dave, you don't pay an anesthesiologist all that money to put you
to sleep, you pay him to wake you up afterwards!

	-- from a discussion on the value of medical specialists