Re: Interesting article on ARG work

["Dan'l Miller" <optikos@verizon.net>]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
> On 09/04/2018 05:50, Dan'l Miller wrote:
> 
> > I am saying that you are 100% incorrect that only the presence or only the absence of the @-code will be compiled in the most-exemplary implementation, leaving the other uncompiled variant to bit-rot uncompiled for extended periods of time.
> 
> I didn't say that.

Oh yes you did by examples, where you (and even enlisting the late Ichbiah at one point) give examples of bit-rot where some unwise programmer of @-code left a presence/absence branch of  the @-code uncompilable henceforth.  Your examples were clearly making the case that Mr. Unwise Programmer was going to stink up the codebase with @-code that was compiled only with @-code present that would break in would-be builds where @-code was absent that Mr. Unwise Programmer cavalierly failed to test-build, but that the next beleaguered programmer would need to rectify upon building with @-code absent.  Your entire premise was based on the mistaken claim that the build-time would not build both presence and absence of the @-code in one shot to show Mr. Unwise Programmer the error of his ways right then and there upfront in his face.  Let us look at 2 of those examples:

Dmitry wrote on 08 April 2018:
> More complicated rules are required for declarations, e.g. that 
> conditionally declared entities would not be visible outside conditional 
> code: 
>
> declare 
> @  X : Integer; 
>     Y : Integer; 
> begin 
>     Y := X; -- This is illegal 
> @  Y := X; -- This is OK 
> end; 
>
> or 
>
> @ with Text_IO; 
> use Text_IO; -- No, that does not work