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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,36bf044dcba542cc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-09-29 07:21:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!chnws02.mediaone.net!chnws06.ne.mediaone.net!24.128.8.70!typhoon.ne.mediaone.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Jeff Creem" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3BB56747.D60CA49F@acm.org> Subject: Re: Question on using protected objects X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 14:20:22 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.61.92.65 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mediaone.net X-Trace: typhoon.ne.mediaone.net 1001773222 24.61.92.65 (Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:20:22 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 10:20:22 EDT Organization: Road Runner Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:13512 Date: 2001-09-29T14:20:22+00:00 List-Id: "DuckE" wrote in message news:C9jt7.52545$QK.35535895@news1.sttln1.wa.home.com... > "Jeffrey Carter" wrote in message > news:3BB56747.D60CA49F@acm.org... > > What does your compiler say? (Hint: I suggest using GNAT with the -gnaty > > option.) > > The compiler is perfectly happy with this. It even "appears" to do exactly > what I want. If I were programming in C, that's as far as I would go before > using this construct. In Ada I try to avoid the "try it and see if it > works" mode of operation since it sometimes leads to unpredictable results. That is the strangest statement I ever heard. To summarize ... If you were using a language where the compiler checks less at compile time and is less able to tell you at run time about problems you are ?MORE? inclined to stop after a clean compile and a run that appears to work?