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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,57228cde5a9481bb X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-21 15:21:00 PST Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!wizard.pn.com!Germany.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!paladin.american.edu!auvm!ROO.FIT.EDU!HARBAUGH Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Message-ID: Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 05:39:00 EDT Sender: Ada programming language Comments: RFC822 error: Incorrect or incomplete address field found and ignored. From: Simtel20 Transfer Subject: Re: Change to obscure visibility rule in 9x Date: 1994-10-19T05:39:00-04:00 List-Id: Bob Duff writes: 2.a Reason: The reason for making overloadable declarations with profiles special is to simplify compilation: until the compiler has determined the profile, it doesn't know which other declarations are homographs of this one, so it doesn't know which ones this one should hide. Without this rule, two passes over the _specification or generic_instantiation would be required to resolve names that denote things with the same name as this one. So the compiler has to look at a few hundred bytes of source code twice, With today's 8MB and higher PCs that doesn't seem like any problem. It seems like the one-pass goal should be deferred in favor of removing rules, especially obscure ones. I am not a compiler person so maybe someone will say there is more to this than meets the eye. sam harbaugh HARBAUGH@ROO.FIT.EDU What's the difference between the new Denver airport and the White House? You can land an airplane at the White House!