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 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9aa4352fa83d37dc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-03-02 23:54:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!lon-transit.news.telstra.net!ken-in.news.telstra.net!ken-transit.news.telstra.net!news.telstra.net!news-server.bigpond.net.au!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Dale Stanbrough Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Main subprogram at library level References: <1047ia2f8afucd9@corp.supernews.com> <104a370t2sred07@corp.supernews.com> <7qa1c.16379$yZ1.8619@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.3b1 (PPC Mac OS X) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 07:54:02 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 144.132.48.201 X-Complaints-To: abuse@bigpond.net.au X-Trace: news-server.bigpond.net.au 1078300442 144.132.48.201 (Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:54:02 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:54:02 EST Organization: BigPond Internet Services Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6026 Date: 2004-03-03T07:54:02+00:00 List-Id: In article <7qa1c.16379$yZ1.8619@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Jeffrey Carter wrote: > Randy Brukardt wrote: > > > AI-344 proposes to remove the restriction altogether. Certainly a better > > idea than eliminating it in one weird place... > > Eliminating it altogether, if possible, would be nice. I was coming from > the position that the restriction is necessary. If it's not necessary, > why do we have it? > > However, I'm not sure that that the main subprogram's declarative region > is really such a weird place. Lots of people, including some with Ada > experience and knowledge of the restriction, assume that the main > subprogram is at library level (until their compiler tells them > otherwise and they post a message here asking why). I hope I've got this right...! It may not be at the "library level" (meaning you can place values in heap/static storage) as the values will still have to be on the stack. The main procedure can be called recursively, as well as being called as a simple procedure by others later on. The validity of the compilation shouldn't be determined by who decides to call it at some later date. Dale -- dstanbro@spam.o.matic.bigpond.net.au