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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ec4a7355f321a22b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 controlnews3.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsr1.ipcore.viaginterkom.de!news-peer1!btnet-feed3!newreader.ukcore.bt.net!btnet-feed5!btnet!news.btopenworld.com!not-for-mail
From: "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Task discriminants
Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 07:55:29 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Message-ID: <c8n11h$5qi$1@hercules.btinternet.com>
References: <40ACC50E.9040406@mail.usyd.edu.au>
 <mailman.1.1085073466.401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <c8itt3$gkq$1@titan.btinternet.com> <40adcdfe_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net>
 <c8kti8$p07$1@titan.btinternet.com> <YIadnaE4uYUXxjPd4p2dnA@megapath.net>
 <c8luk4$29b$1@hercules.btinternet.com> <qs2dndOX7I9aEDPdRVn-gw@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-56-112.range81-152.btcentralplus.com
X-Trace: hercules.btinternet.com 1085212529 5970 81.152.56.112 (22 May 2004
 07:55:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 May 2004 07:55:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Priority: 3
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:768
Date: 2004-05-22T07:55:29+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:qs2dndOX7I9aEDPdRVn-gw@megapath.net...
> "Martin Dowie" <martin.dowie@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > Given this last statement, is it worth changing the RM to make this a
> > Confirmation or Implementation Advice or some such?
>
> Well, we'd need a compelling reason to make a change here, because it's
> possible that some implementors do use this rule to some advantage. The
only
> time it matters is when you have side effects during elaboration, which is
> generally discouraged anyway.

The only thing I can think of that some users are currently taking advantage
of what is partically implemented! :-)

Is there any compiler out that that does not do the 'right thing' - I've
certainly
never come across one.

-- Martin