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: 1997/04/04
Message-ID: <dewar.860207445@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 230825785
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> 	<dewar.860114168@merv>
 <JSA.97Apr4180757@alexandria>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c
Date: 1997-04-04T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon said

<<Emphasis mine.  I read "to catch overflows efficiently" as being
interchangeable with "to avoid inefficiencies in catching overflows".
I think Bob has already agreed with this, but that he meant to also
say he didn't really know for sure if it worked.>>

incidentally I definitely see how you could read Bob's statement the
way you did, rereading it. I guess the reason I did not read it that
way was because I knew that would be a completely false implication,
and I assumed, perhaps too charitably, that no one would make the 
claim that it would be possible to eliminate the penalty for overflow
checking when generating C :-)

You on the other hand, I guess really wanted it to be possible to 
generate efficient C, so you were happy to read it more optimistically.
Just goes to show that it is not easy to be 100% clear in email!