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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d1df6bc3799debed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: Not intended for use in medical, Date: 1997/05/12 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 241161258 References: <3.0.32.19970423164855.00746db8@mail.4dcomm.com> <5kmek2$9re@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > It = allowing in out parameters in functions. The trouble is that > Robert Eachus' claim is false. It is impossible to write the body > of the random number generator specified in the Ada 95 RM > efficiently in legitimate Ada 95 (the GNAT version has to use > special GNAT specific attributes to get a decent implementation, > though you could probably do the same with unchecked conversion in > almost any implementation). I guess we have different definitions of efficiency. Since for any decent random number generator the generator parameter will be a record that should be passed by reference, the fact that "pure" Ada may require the generator object to be on a heap (so the pointer can be passed as an in parameter) has no effect on the efficiency of the call to Random. Any overhead occurs in the creation and deletion of generator objects, which usually occurs once per program. > Many people posit all sorts of interesting theories about why > Algol-68 "failed", but the simple fact of the matter is that > Algol-68 succeeded where good compilers were available, and failed > where they were not! No. I never had access to the ICL compiler but I did use the RRE compiler and even looked into porting it to Multics. But now that you mention it, it was speakers of American English that found the usage jarring, so maybe the usages were more comfortable to the British. One of the most jarring was pragmat, and we have so little trouble with pragma. > That is technically confused. Algol-68 has two type styles for > identifiers, represented as bold and normal in publication > language, and signalled by some "stropping" convention in real > compilers. Two typical stropping mechanisms are the use of upper > case, and the use of quote marks, as in traditional Algol-60 > compilers. Aarrgh! I tried to use the quote stropping mode ONCE. Still gives me nightmares. Recognizing only the UPPER CASE reserved words as reserved was common, but it made for a style that only Mike Feldman could love. ;-) I guess I should have asked if anyone ever used a mode other than treating the keywords as reserved. (It has been awhile, but I'm pretty sure that was common with Algol-68R.) > Keywords and mode names (type names to the Ada folks) are in bold, > and ordinary identifires are in normal font. The keywords ARE > reserved as bold names, e.g. IF (or 'if') cannot be used as a mode > name in Algol-68, but of course the identifier if in normal case > can of course be used. Ah, one other difference, that may have made all the difference. At the time, in the US, most high-speed printers were run with 48-character (all upper-case) print chains and even medium speed printers were often 7 or 9 pin printers with no usable lower case. Using upper case as the only stropping was simply not on. -- Robert I. Eachus with Standard_Disclaimer; use Standard_Disclaimer; function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...