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: 103376,29ffcfebbad909d0 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Two more AQS-95 questions Date: 1998/02/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 322417602 References: <34D60055.1FFF@gc057.fw.hac.com> <34D9DF1F.33B8@nospam.lmco.com> X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 886712948 21828 (None) 128.122.140.58 Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-02-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: <<"Named numbers allow compilers to generate more efficient code than for constants and to perform more complete error checking at compile time." >> I would find it surprising if any compiler generated more efficient code for the named number case. I mean I suppose you could imagine a compiler so broken that it would only do constant propagating for named numbers, but that would sure be surprising. Certainly for GNAT there is no such advantage, and hypotheisizing such an advantage in a style guide seems nonsense to me. For sure, the point about more complete error checking is wrong. Indeed, this is a case in which there is indeed a difference, but it is the other way round, a typed constant obviously gives more opportunities for type checking!