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!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsr1.ipcore.viaginterkom.de!news-peer1!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: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:40:00 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: BT Openworld
Message-ID: <c90hvv$blh$1@titan.btinternet.com>
References: <40ACC50E.9040406@mail.usyd.edu.au>
 <mailman.1.1085073466.401.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <c8itt3$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>
 <c8n11h$5qi$1@hercules.btinternet.com> <vpGdnbX1YZHq9y_d4p2dnA@megapath.net>
 <c8umnc$lqt$1@sparta.btinternet.com> <0pGdnb8KMtY7Ni7dRVn-jw@megapath.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: host81-152-56-112.range81-152.btcentralplus.com
X-Trace: titan.btinternet.com 1085524800 11953 81.152.56.112 (25 May 2004
 22:40:00 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news-complaints@lists.btinternet.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 22:40:00 +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:835
Date: 2004-05-25T22:40:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:0pGdnb8KMtY7Ni7dRVn-jw@megapath.net...
> > Absolutely! But that was kind of my question - is there any
implementation
> > that won't give the desired result in this case? Not to my knowledge but
> then
> > I don't have access to every implementation...
>
> I meant even on a particular implementation. A different setting of
> optimization flags, a different expression in the discriminant default,
and
> an implementation that appears to work on your test program could do
> something different. So just because you have some instance of it that
works
> with some particular set of compiler switches does not mean that that
> implementation "gives the desired result" in general. Only your
implementor
> could really tell you, and even they might not know for sure.

Really?!

I'm not sure what you mean by "a different expression in the
discriminant default" - that's always going to be a call to the
function in the example I gave? No?

As to different optimization flags, I would have thought that falls under
the same category "haven't found one yet that does anything other than
the 'sensible' option" - but you never know.

There are other precedents for "polling" to find out what all ARA compiler
vendors do in particular cases - I guess I'd be interested in such a poll.
If
there is already a 'de facto' standard implmentation I don't see any harm
in making it Implementation Advice - I do see the harm in requiring such
behaviour! ;-)

I also recognize that I'm but one (user) voice and that the
ARA/Ada-Comment have better things to do! For me I'm ok with assuming
the 'sensible' option and testing it happens - that may be good enough for
other folks.

Cheers

-- Martin