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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 168414806 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > he completely misses my point. His proposed additional statement adds No I don't. > nothing to the RM. It is not some complex theorem that needs proving, No one ever said it was. > For some reason, Jon got confused by what GNAT was doing, and was for a Not really. Simply missed the bit about the switch. > Jon, if all you are proposing is adding your one sentence, I think that As I have stated several times, I am not proposing adding this statement. Apparently you have missed my only point. Which was simply that that statement, contrary to your claim(s), is _FAR_ clearer on the subject than all the RM has to say about it. This is so OBVIOUS that to disagree with it is really to defy credulity. > According to Jon's thinking, as far as I can understand it, if someone > was confused on this point, he would suggest adding a statement like But you do not understand my thinking... Oh well. > that says that this particular kind of unit is not needed. We have a > general concept of semantic dependency, which is well defined in the RM, Yes, but not particularly clear. > and covers ALL such cases in a nice uniform way -- why single one out > just because someone got confused by what one implementation did? I am not suggesting this. Robert, Sometimes you can be a bit exasperating. I never suggested adding the statement to the RM. This whole silly discussion started simply because you claimed there was no _possible_ way to state things more clearly on this issue than what the RM says. I showed that this was just patently false. You then (for reasons I am unclear about) took this as implying that I thought this new statement _should_ have been in the RM. I said no that's not what I meant, only that it is (obviously) clearer. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com