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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,ac02560f0af03a21 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-06 15:45:31 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!216.166.71.14!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 17:45:29 -0600 Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 18:45:28 -0500 From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT parameter passing, C-style? References: <3FEC43B2.5080606@noplace.com> <1072450300.440355@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3FEC4E89.2070804@noplace.com> <1072458199.346049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3fec7c21$0$4764$61fed72c@news.rcn.com> <4iBIb.8173$qS3.498@nwrdny03.gnilink.net> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.214.193 X-Trace: sv3-2Mf785ghOKxO1fEnPo3JipGkbekprcIYNl3U2625MAPFIc26et2llcfC1NR30v7sUfvtLfej0pjEDbA!NpUabimIG1nqH6T6izjU57a1RsSyNcIbG/FpKxa9m5hdUXIeXDjFUlf6J8kz6w== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4159 Date: 2004-01-06T18:45:28-05:00 List-Id: Keith Thompson wrote: > For Ada, there's not much difference *to the user* between a bounded > error and erroneous execution; they're both to be avoided. It's an > important distinction to implementers, though. I know that. I was just saying that in cases where an Ada 83 erroneous execution has been changed to a bounded error, I have not--and I think that any sane programmer would not--say "That's all right then, as long as the behaviour is bounded, I don't have to worry." The same thing holds for implementation dependent as well. An implementor is going to have to document what happens, but whether something is implementation dependent, a bounded error, or results in erroneous execution, the user sees it all the same way. "Don't do this if you want to write trustworthy and portable programs." And of course, that is the real distinction between C and Ada. I can write portable C, but it is significantly harder than just programming in C. In Ada I don't have to work hard to write portable code. In fact, the only times I use implementation dependent code of any kind is when I am testing a compiler, or writing something that really is implementation dependent, such as an interface to a hardware register. Even there, only the register location (and layout) is implementation dependent. The rest of the code doesn't have to be. -- Robert I. Eachus "The war on terror is a different kind of war, waged capture by capture, cell by cell, and victory by victory. Our security is assured by our perseverance and by our sure belief in the success of liberty." -- George W. Bush