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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d5e5c645a7ec696f X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Ada Code Formatting (Ada source diff) Date: 1996/09/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 178992222 references: organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Franco Mazzanti said: "This, actually, could be seen as a feature, when it documented inside the script, rather then a bug. Is there any other really meaningful difference which is lost, (apart from not distinguing the literals 01, 001, 0001, 2#1#, 4#1#, and similars)?" The point is that there is no reliable answer to this question. The only guarantee on -gnatdo (-do in gnatf) is that the output is equivalent semanmtically to the original source. Note that this is more than just a debugging feature, since this same circuit is used for distribution stub generation, so it is certainly not going away, and I agree that from one point of view the normalization done by -gnato could be seen as a feature. Another case is large numbers of parens result in paren layers being ignored, e.g. (((((((b))))))) is the same as (((b))). There many be others, I simply don't know since there is no requirement to think about this or document it!