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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: a07f3367d7,8143b93889fe9472
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Received: by 10.224.17.140 with SMTP id s12mr1002531qaa.3.1359483480519;
        Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:18:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.49.1.162 with SMTP id 2mr215692qen.2.1359483480455; Tue, 29
 Jan 2013 10:18:00 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 k2ni3907qap.0!nntp.google.com!p13no6090367qai.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:18:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <51080c38$0$6561$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=69.153.54.159;
 posting-account=lJ3JNwoAAAAQfH3VV9vttJLkThaxtTfC
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.153.54.159
References: <8dfcf819-e1d0-4578-a795-a4bf724b5014@googlegroups.com>
 <ke55qi$59m$1@dont-email.me> <ammppjF63goU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke69q3$vou$1@dont-email.me> <amo50dFg605U1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke6o2n$jrj$1@dont-email.me> <amo8u2Fh3ngU1@mid.individual.net>
 <ke7peh$tof$1@dont-email.me> <ampmcqFqh9aU1@mid.individual.net>
 <5107b329$0$6556$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amptotFs5ouU1@mid.individual.net>
 <5107eaed$0$6566$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
 <amqdeeF1b3qU1@mid.individual.net>
 <51080c38$0$6561$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <df0b8ef3-11f9-4953-a3b2-58638ec5055d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Ada standard and maximum line lengths
From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 18:18:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2013-01-29T10:18:00-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:51:52 AM UTC-6, Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> On 29.01.13 17:58, Niklas Holsti wrote:
>=20
> So it seems obvious that there is an opportunity for
> improvement and modernization of linking by addressing
> naming in programs written in Ada, C++, and practically
> related languages. We have type theory. We have objects.
> What we don't have is types at the object code level
> ("object code. Ha!"). But could we?

Yes, we could. It would require a completely different OBJ format than is c=
urrently used and would likely benefit from not using any existing OBJ form=
at as a base, forcing a reworking of the linking as well.

>=20
> Hence, what will a .o/.obj files look like if both C++ and
> Ada wanted to let programmers write "normal length" identifiers
> for cross-language types, say?

Well IIUC, that *is* doable -- just look at OpenVMS. Of course this is achi=
eved by enforcing (1) a common language runtime, ["Common Language Environm=
ent" in VMS parlance], and (2) the "OpenVMS Calling Standard".

>=20
> Going back to my initial question. Suppose linker symbols
> were structured. Won't the rather technical need for allowing
> long identifiers in Ada source text just vanish?

I don't know. As someone mentioned up-thread there's also the 'need' to all=
ow for tool/auto-generated code -- I can see that as more prone to producin=
g long-names than the OBJ-situation, especially because the OBJ situation *=
IS* an instance of tool-generated names.