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-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.180.101.168 with SMTP id fh8mr2312680wib.1.1359626463608;
        Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:01:03 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 bp2ni7941wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.131.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder3.xlned.com!border5.a.newsrouter.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!border5.newsrouter.astraweb.com!newspeer1.nac.net!news.mi.ras.ru!goblin3!goblin.stu.neva.ru!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!news.informatik.hu-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada standard and maximum line lengths
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:54:05 +0200
Organization: Tidorum Ltd
Message-ID: <amqnmtF3q45U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <8dfcf819-e1d0-4578-a795-a4bf724b5014@googlegroups.com>
 <ke55qi$59m$1@dont-email.me> <ammppjF63goU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke69q3$vou$1@dont-email.me> <amo50dFg605U1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke6o2n$jrj$1@dont-email.me> <amo8u2Fh3ngU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke7peh$tof$1@dont-email.me> <ampmcqFqh9aU1@mid.individual.net>
 <5107b329$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amptotFs5ouU1@mid.individual.net>
 <5107eaed$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amqdeeF1b3qU1@mid.individual.net>
 <51080c38$0$6561$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: individual.net
 RHtTkNTkaIhOL/2QqIAGeQ6Q2in0pWlEj+Fxdpky1kbHZszNXMG6F+2YMUoCcy0ut0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:RjXbVpCl7caUrtpSL96nbXoEoHE=
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/20130107 Thunderbird/17.0.2
In-Reply-To: <51080c38$0$6561$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 2013-01-29T21:54:05+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 13-01-29 19:51 , Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 29.01.13 17:58, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>> On 13-01-29 17:29 , Georg Bauhaus wrote:
>>> On 29.01.13 13:31, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>>>> Even for hypothetical SW of some sort that generates Ada source code
>>>> automatically, I think it very unlikely that it would generate
>>>> identifiers of that length, since Ada identifiers can be qualified and
>>>> sorted into packages etc. much more flexibly than is the case for linker
>>>> symbols.
>>>
>>> GNAT writes similar identifiers into object files, and
>>> the same hysterical raisins spoil the cake. At least the
>>> names---those to be exported to other compilers---seem shorter
>>> if package hierarchies are not used extensively.
>>
>> So what? These are *linker symbols*, not Ada (source) identifiers. I
>> don't understand why you bring them into a discussion of source-code
>> identifier lengths.
> 
> Linker symbols reappear in source text.

Show an example, please, where it is necessary to write a linker symbol
verbatim as an Ada identifier.

> So, linker symbols are two-sided creatures: on the one side, they
> are intended for use by linkers; on the other side, they reappear
> in source text, even when "just in a pragma" or some such.

If they are written in a pragma as a string, they are not Ada
identifiers, and the ARM limit on identifier length does not apply.

> By the response above, I need to accept long identifiers in
> practice; it is a fact that compilers support the reality
> of excessively long identifiers and so these reappear in source
> text,

Not as identifiers. As strings, occasionally.

>    valid standard C++ program     valid standard Ada program
>               |                             |
>                               _
>                               |  (non-standard pragmas)
>                               _
>                  /                       \
>             compilers A+B            compilers C+E
>                  |                       |
>                 OK                      NOK
> 
> The same valid programs, translated on the same platform, can
> be rejected because the program needs to imports the long,
> non-standard, non-portable names.

Sure, using link-name pragmas is unportable, since different compilers
mangle identifiers into symbols in different ways.

Sure, this is a poor mess and should be improved.

But it has nothing to do with limits on identifier length in Ada.

> Going back to my initial question. Suppose linker symbols
> were structured. Won't the rather technical need for allowing
> long identifiers in Ada source text just vanish?

There has never been, and is not now, such a need.

-- 
Niklas Holsti
Tidorum Ltd
niklas holsti tidorum fi
      .      @       .