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-Thread: 103376,21aaebbd9205357c X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Received: by 10.180.89.133 with SMTP id bo5mr4771078wib.6.1362603687031; Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:01:27 -0800 (PST) Path: g1ni50372wig.0!nntp.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "J-P. Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Please list all the Ada libraries you know Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2013 22:01:27 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: References: <69291c5f-ffce-4b48-a1c5-aa76f308082f@googlegroups.com> <0b80a829-05d4-4f07-a954-3acb3b276d5b@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Injection-Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 21:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org; posting-host="2b3884a634d8f846e0712b4e3a92507a"; logging-data="11179"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ARQzlGYvjuSKiKL1lO5Fh" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130215 Thunderbird/17.0.3 In-Reply-To: <0b80a829-05d4-4f07-a954-3acb3b276d5b@googlegroups.com> Cancel-Lock: sha1:8nJDls9A89fH2JuOQnC5hrJaDaM= X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: 2013-03-06T22:01:27+01:00 List-Id: Le 06/03/2013 18:08, Adam Beneschan a �crit : > If you're trying to say "big enough that one can sense it", > "sensible" isn't the right word--it means something totally > different. "Noticeable" is probably the word you wanted. I confess that I've been trapped. I did mean noticeable, but I typed too fast... > Anyway, though, my feeling is that once one has chosen to build a > "source model" compiler--which means, if I understand it correctly, > that if you WITH a package then the compiler has to read the original > source of the WITH'ed package specification--then one has already > decided that disk access time isn't an issue. (If it were, the > compiler could do something to create a smaller, compressed version > of the specification that it would read in instead of reading the > original source.) So whatever good reasons there might be for GNAT > to default to a particular case convention, saving disk read time > probably isn't a valid reason. > It may well be the other way round. In a library model, you keep the same information (about specs) in the form of tables, and it is not obvious that they use less space than the source form. -- J-P. Rosen Adalog 2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00 http://www.adalog.fr