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: 103376,33c2f396f345ec59
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ehud Lamm <mslamm@mscc.huji.ac.il>
Subject: Re: FRAC tool?
Date: 1999/05/21
Message-ID: 
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990521120459.95542A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 480485076
References: <hQT%2.24$Wu1.441@news.flash.net>
 <Pine.A41.3.96-heb-2.07.990520213104.169052A-100000@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il>
 <7i2ffp$unl$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Organization: The hebrew University of Jerusalem
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-05-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

> No, it is of course far more complex than this. The
> initialization expression in a type declaration, or
> function calls in the bounds of course generate code.
> 
> On the other hand, many other rep clauses etc should be
> considered
> 
> This is not a trivial AWK tool!

My aim wasn't to insult anyone by mentioning AWK :-)

What I would find interesting is seening what code is supposed to be
counted by this tool. I find that the definitions are the hard part in
this kind of game.
So
type A is range F(1)..F(2)
will not be counted? Or maybe it should, since the code for F is coutned
as executable code, and this is defined as a declearation?

I am not expressing an opinion. I simply would be happy to know.
References are of course welcome too.

Ehud Lamm     mslamm@pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il