Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <dewar.860207445@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Jon said
> 
> <<Emphasis mine.  I read "to catch overflows efficiently" as being
> interchangeable with "to avoid inefficiencies in catching overflows".
> I think Bob has already agreed with this, but that he meant to also
> say he didn't really know for sure if it worked.>>
> 
> incidentally I definitely see how you could read Bob's statement the
> way you did, rereading it. I guess the reason I did not read it that
> way was because I knew that would be a completely false implication,
> and I assumed, perhaps too charitably, that no one would make the 
> claim that it would be possible to eliminate the penalty for overflow
> checking when generating C :-)

I read it as it was written.  Period.  What is more, Bob has stated
that this was what he wrote but that he meant to indicate that he
didn't know a) if the "tricks" were really successful nor b) whether
the "tricks" involved generated C.  We all now know that it appears
that these "tricks" were not successful and in certain respects cannot
be successuful.


> You on the other hand, I guess really wanted it to be possible to 
> generate efficient C, so you were happy to read it more optimistically.

Here you are just plain wrong.  I have no desires here one way or the
other since I have no stake in the matter whatsoever.  Other than
knowing the actual facts, I don't really care about the issue at all.


> Just goes to show that it is not easy to be 100% clear in email!

This is absolutely true!

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com