Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers

["John R. Strohm" <strohm@airmail.net>]

X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitationAbuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 01:24:29 -0500 (CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Host: !`-]Z1k-WDO1mC& (Encoded at Airnews!)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:wDJRa.5501$0F4.1836@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> John R. Strohm wrote:
> > Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to be believe that only
changes
> > to source code can produce changes to semantics, and that those changes
> > should only propagate through one level of inheritance ('with').
>
> What I believe is that people hated their compilers for doing stuff
> like this, and that lengthy recompilation was such an issue that it
> became part of the design specs for Ada95. Obviously you can come up
> with situations where funny flag settings could require dependents
> to be recompiled, but that's not really an excuse for poor quality of
> implementation.
>
>  > (Incidentally, this is not far from the example that Jean Ichbiah
>  > himself gave when asked why Ada required recompilation of all
>  > dependents if a spec that had not changed was recompiled.)
>
> Where does Ada require this?

Review the recompilation rules that you have been kvetching about for the
last few days.

Maybe you should spend some time actually learning and using Ada.