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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5894fe67040038b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-08 11:37:21 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!europa.netcrusader.net!usenetserver.com!144.212.100.101!newsfeed.mathworks.com!nycmny1-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snh1.gtei.net!chcgil2-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version
Date: 8 Nov 2001 13:37:03 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <eeryaXdbwqQT@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <9s9iti$g$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <5ee5b646.0111061939.595b61be@posting.google.com>
 <9sbb1f$2bm$1@plutonium.btinternet.com> <9sboee$42f$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <W4fG7.11237$ym4.493547@iad-read.news.verio.net> <9sc0cf$76a$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <5ee5b646.0111071511.6fe3f067@posting.google.com>
 <ubsidqiif.fsf@gsfc.nasa.gov> <hrQGkj0SsFUJ@eisner.encompasserve.org>
 <9seku6$hes$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1005248225 24887 192.135.80.34 (8 Nov 2001
 19:37:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 19:37:05 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16087
Date: 2001-11-08T13:37:03-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9seku6$hes$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, "Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> writes:
> This may not be news: I often want what is, in fact, impossible. :-)
> 
> But so far, I don't think what I want has been shown to *be* impossible. If
> the compiler is somehow or other capable of determining that the string for
> '*Version needs to be *different* then how is it impossible to be sure that
> the next string chosen satisfies the semantics: New_String > Old_String ???
> 
> If the relationship only has the meaning: "This version was compiled at a
> later time than the previous version" and you make no other use of it beyond
> that, then I don't think doing so is impossible or undesirable.

Yes, that much would be possible.  I just don't think it would be
much use, for instance in the case where I back out the change to
a compilation unit upon which the subject compilation unit depends.

A more recent compilation could mean an _earlier_ version of the code.