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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Implementing Rust's borrow checked pointers
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 13:53:41 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Message-ID: <lnef055sbu.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
References: <ea369318-97cb-434f-9ba1-844d83db5f61@googlegroups.com>
	<cc19a301-1198-4213-b746-ae2bc1078be8@googlegroups.com>
	<5edf39fb-169a-463a-b28e-ece1d3b553e0@googlegroups.com>
	<lnpnjp5wyt.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
	<c41a9e58-0d1a-44f7-96ad-0e5e1b7d3954@googlegroups.com>
	<lnimph5tda.fsf@kst-u.example.com>
	<b8efb80c-2388-402e-b779-5a7caed0997a@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="28292d79cbf11d7f5785c7d4405154cb";
	logging-data="8699"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19pouXx5I3PdCWgmDrLUJCK"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:3Y+pJpZWVqrn520EJrVU1YSuREg=
	sha1:YTByCKIfm9cpaYPCEy2N6bB5Yfk=
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:57189
Date: 2019-09-24T13:53:41-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Optikos <optikos@verizon.net> writes:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:31:15 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> Again, the claim (from Lucretia, not from you) was:
>> 
>>     Yes, the compiler would raise that exception at compile
>>     time. This idea that all exceptions are raised at runtime is
>>     false and you should check the AARM.
>
> I already answered that in my 9:08AM reply today.  I demonstrated via
> extensive quotation from AARM that Luke utilized the incorrect
> term-of-art.  According to the AARM as written, Luke meant “error” (as
> quoted from AARM) when he wrote “exception” (as quoted from c.l.a).
> With a relatively minor change from Luke's “raise exception” to emit
> error message at compile-time, Luke's statement is otherwise correct.
>
>> Printing a warning message is not raising an exception.

Ah, so you're agreeing with me.

I asked Lucretia to support the assertion that exceptions can be
raised during compilation.  I'm not sure your response was helpful.
I'd be interested in seeing a response *from Lucretia*. (Yes,
this is a public newsgroup and anyone can reply to anything, but
my question was intended to be directed to Lucretia.)

I think Lucretia simply made a mistake, but given the apparent
strength of the assertion I'd like to see a clarification.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */