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,c0f035b936128b6c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 1014db,c0f035b936128b6c
X-Google-Attributes: gid1014db,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada95 to ANSI_C converter
Date: 1997/04/03
Message-ID: <dewar.860114168@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 230569850
References: <5hbrah$ctt$1@gail.ripco.com> <JSA.97Mar28134228@alexandria>
 	<dewar.859584395@merv> <JSA.97Mar31144058@alexandria>
 	<E7xots.51o@world.std.com> <JSA.97Apr2144544@alexandria>
 	<dewar.860070899@merv> <JSA.97Apr3134856@alexandria>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c
Date: 1997-04-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon said

<<Robert, you should read a little more carefully.  Please.  The comment
above is in response to one of Bob's about how the ICC implementation
_avoided_ inefficiency here.  Now, I don't know for a fact that Bob's
comment is accurate (that the ICC implementation was _not_ inefficent
here), but I assumed it was when I asked this question.  So, the
proper response here should be either:>>

Nope, that's not what Bob said, he said that ICC used some implementation
dependent tricks -- that's true! Not that they avoided inefficiencies.
Reread Bob's post, you will see that you invented the word avoid (you
just read that into it, but it is not what he said!!)