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-Thread: a07f3367d7,8143b93889fe9472 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Received: by 10.66.88.234 with SMTP id bj10mr1809212pab.30.1359689061613; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 19:24:21 -0800 (PST) Path: 6ni27867pbd.1!nntp.google.com!npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!border3.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!news.snarked.org!feeder.erje.net!us.feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Niklas Holsti Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada standard and maximum line lengths Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:29:38 +0200 Organization: Tidorum Ltd Message-ID: References: <8dfcf819-e1d0-4578-a795-a4bf724b5014@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: individual.net CDbN/JVGpyVYgWBMShOTlAmXE5g+Hu1kXIJ+ighp8f1rBkOi/eLD2PectGjqbRsJms Cancel-Lock: sha1:26M2mditI+vxSWo3oTcx3rygd6A= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2 In-Reply-To: X-Received-Bytes: 3879 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2013-01-28T23:29:38+02:00 List-Id: On 13-01-28 22:46 , J-P. Rosen wrote: > Le 28/01/2013 21:22, Niklas Holsti a �crit : >> My point is that the compiler's max identifier length can be *less* than >> its max line length. > Can you point the RM verse that allows you to think that the compiler is > allowed to put a max to an identifier length, other than the one that > results "naturally" from the max line length? ARM 2.2(14), the same part that Jeffrey quoted: "An implementation shall support lines of at least 200 characters in length, not counting any characters used to signify the end of a line. An implementation shall support lexical elements of at least 200 characters in length. The maximum supported line length and lexical element length are implementation defined." This is followed by the note (maybe only in the AARM, which is what I have in hand): "Implementation defined: Maximum supported line length and lexical element length." As I understand ARM 2.2(14), it does not define a coupling between maximum line length and maximum lexical-element length (i.e. maximum identifier length). It requires both limits to be at least 200 characters, but does not require them to be equal. The limits are stated in separate sentences -- the two first sentences in the quote. Perhaps the third and last sentence in ARM 2.2(14), which mentions both limits in one sentence, confuses the issue. Occasionally, people write sentences of the form "The A and B are ..." and imply that A and B are the same. If the limits are meant to be coupled (equal), there should some text such as "An implementation shall accept lexical elements that are as long as the maximum supported line length". But that is not what the ARM says. And I don't think that one can deduce such a rule just from the fact that the required minimum limits are both 200 characters. In the same post in which Jeffrey quoted ARM 2.2(14), it seemed he was reading it to mean that there is a coupling. I was asking how he deduced that coupling. I'm asking the same question as you (J-P.), but from the other side of the burden of proof. So, can you show the ARM verse that says that a compiler is not allowed to limit identifiers to 200 characters, if it supports lines of 10,000 characters? I haven't scanned the whole ARM to see if there is some other text that requires max line length and max identifier length to be coupled. But it would be strange to have such text in some other distant part of the ARM, and not in 2.2 where it would clearly belong. -- Niklas Holsti Tidorum Ltd niklas holsti tidorum fi . @ .