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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,e151cd4e58019c6c X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-11 07:24:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!skynet.be!skynet.be!news-x2.support.nl!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Newbie: Best Ada Compiler for MS Windows ? Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 13:48:28 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <5ee5b646.0204092008.7a6a41bc@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1018460909 14678 136.170.200.133 (10 Apr 2002 17:48:29 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Apr 2002 17:48:29 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22362 Date: 2002-04-10T17:48:29+00:00 List-Id: But why would you want a non-standard method of getting this information when it is (or should be) possible to get it from a standard mechanism? "RTFM" isn't the point - it seems to me to be superior to have a textual traceback provided by Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Information than to get it from Vendor.Specific.Operation. (It would be nice to just see it show up when the program dies without having to do anything special - the DEC compilers used to be pretty good at that sort of thing - but I'll concede that on efficiency grounds if that's the case and it isn't in the standard anyway.) I don't know that "lazy" is an entirely fair characterization of someone who doesn't read through all the documentation for something. (Compilers are for people who are too lazy to toggle in their programs from the front pannel! :-)Most of us will take a new product and just start driving it around to see what it will do and maybe get to the manual as we start evolving specific questions. A newbie reading an Ada book and trying things out would likely go to Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Information and wonder why he wasn't getting all the info he might want. Pointing at the compiler documentation of a non-standard way of doing it - while helpful - doesn't seem to warrant criticism of the hypothetical newbie. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Stephen Leake" wrote in message news:u8z7vbii4.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov... > > I think the point is that they are _not_ equivalent. > > Ada.Exceptions.Exception_Information is defined in the Ada standard, > and we can hope that a "newbie" will be aware of it. > > GNAT.Traceback.Symbolic.Symbolic_Traceback is only defined in the > GNAT documentation, apparently we cannot hope that a "newbie" will be > aware of it. > > So if our hypothetical lazy newbie tries to get a stack dump from an > exception, they will succeed with the "non-free" compiler, and fail > with GNAT. > > Personally, I always read the GNAT documentation when I get a new > version of GNAT, to see what new goodies are available. Any newbie > worth their salt will do the same! > > -- > -- Stephe