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: 103376,8f8cea8602e61aba
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: evans@evans.pgh.pa.us (Arthur Evans Jr)
Subject: Re: The Red Language
Date: 1997/09/09
Message-ID: <evans-0909971243560001@ppp22.s8.pgh.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271052160
References: <340ED5D8.2DEF6D3@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
 <199709051335.PAA25952@basement.replay.com>
 <34102DF5.36D589F1@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu> <EG7FzG.5Dx@world.std.com>
Organization: Ada Consulting
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <EG7FzG.5Dx@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A
Duff) wrote:

> In article <34102DF5.36D589F1@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu>,
> Dean F. Sutherland <dfsuther@ux4.sp.cs.cmu.edu> wrote:
> >The first significant difference that I recall is that Gnal required
> >that the inlining must occur, even across compilation units.  As you
> >know, Ada's pragma Inline is advisory; compilers may ignore it if they
> >so choose.
> 
> How can a language definition *require* any such thing?  How could you
> test whether the implementation did so?

Well, the language definition required it saying in the document that
that was how the language worked.

Since the main target of the language definition (written by John
Nestor) was the implementation team (John Nestor), testing of this kind
never showed up as an issue.  John said he would do it; later he said he
had done it.  We believed him; why not?

Bob: I think maybe you've been involved too long with Ada.  :-)

Art

Arthur Evans Jr, PhD
Ada Consulting
evans@evans.pgh.pa.us