Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

"Hyman Rosen" <hyrosen@mail.com> wrote in message
news:FTxSa.6118$634.1978@nwrdny03.gnilink.net...

> No. First of all, "exist in the environment" is not a defined concept,
> and doesn't even have to mean object files. For GNAT, existing in the
> environment just means that it can get at the source code of with'ed
> modules.
red herring
> Second, nothing in what you stated implies that recompiling a
> module forces it to be inconsistent with other already compiled modules
> which depend on it.
Strangely enough this statement also appears to be a red herring.
>
> I'm not sure why you consider this to be a troll. If nothing else, the
> fact the recompilation issues were part of the design requirements of
> Ada 95 should demonstrate that Ada had significant problems in this area,
> even without pessimizing compilation systems.
When I read the Ada 95 Rationale's requirements section recompilation issues
were not on the list of four major design requirements.  Nevertheless, you
failed to show causality with your implication.  Recompilation issues could
have been a part of the design requirements because someone thought up a
better way to formulate them.  Just because something was changed does not
imply that there were "significant problems".  Anyway a "significant
problem" is in the eye of the beholder; therefore you implication holds no
meaning.  It is, however, emotionally charged.

Why am I going to such trouble in dissecting your statements?  I simply
wanted to show you why people sometimes consider you to be a troll.  Two red
herrings and an emotion provoking bogus implication.