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: 103376,34d47d048b177d0b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: limited/non-limited in Ada95
Date: 1997/10/22
Message-ID: <dewar.877513445@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 282378892
References: <3442C2A3.3781@bix.com>
 	<mheaney-ya023680001610972221540001@news.ni.net>
 	<ufhgaghueo.fsf@synquiry.com>
 	<mheaney-ya023680001810971145040001@news.ni.net>
 	<JSA.97Oct20202120@alexandria.synquiry.com> <dewar.877425501@merv>
 <JSA.97Oct21183315@alexandria.synquiry.com>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 877513466 31974 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-10-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


<<Anything is _possible_.  It's just not reasonable in this case.  Of
  course I looked at this sort of approach.  It sucks even more than
  forcing reference semantics.>>

  Saying something "sucks" without examples and a technical argument is
  not debate, it is empty rhetoric.

<<I'm not talking about situations where you can have privleged
knowledge and support by/from the compiler.  Sure, in that sort of
case the entire issue is irrelevant (but proprietary and tied to a
single implementation).>>

  I am not talking about that case either, whatever made you think I was?
  The fact that I said "in the context of the GNAT project"? By that I
  just meant that this was the context of the discussions on how to do
  things, not that we were talking about special compiler support.