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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,a00006d3c4735d70 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-02 03:42:49 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-037-230.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Certified C compilers for safety-critical embedded systems Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:49:12 +0100 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <3fe00b82.90228601@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <2u3auvogde8ktotlaq0ldiaska3g416gus@4ax.com> <20619edc.0312221020.3fd1b4ee@posting.google.com> <20619edc.0312222106.3b369547@posting.google.com> <45cs9hAbLc6$EAAx@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <3fe9f0d7.104475725@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <5802069.JsgInS3tXa@linux1.krischik.com> <1072464162.325936@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1563361.SfB03k3vvC@linux1.krischik.com> <11LvOkBBXw7$EAJw@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> <3ff0687f.528387944@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <1086072.fFeiH4ICbz@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff18d4d.603356952@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <1731094.1f7Irsyk1h@linux1.krischik.com> <3ff1b8ef.614528516@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3ff21255.637418757@News.CIS.DFN.DE> <3OCdnR1Hv5k2dG-iRVn-sw@comcast.com> <1072912432.529286@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-037-230.arcor-ip.net (145.254.37.230) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1073043767 3147795 145.254.37.230 ([77047]) User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4037 Date: 2004-01-02T12:49:12+01:00 List-Id: Robert A Duff wrote: > Hyman Rosen writes: > >> Robert A Duff wrote: >> > But I think requiring empty parens on parameterless calls would >> > actually *simplify* the compiler. >> >> Don't forget the useful fiction that enumeration literals >> are parameterless functions. > > I don't much like that "useful fiction". Seems more like a "strange > confusion", to me. > > We don't pretend that "1" is the name of a function, after all. Why not to? There is a famous way to build positive numbers from sets. Let null be an empty set, then {null} is 1, {{null}} is 2 etc. Putting this in Ada notation, could be: 1 renames (others=>null); 2 renames (others=>(others=>null)); ... -- (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov www.dmitry-kazakov.de