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,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3b637950a34ec2d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-15 22:06:04 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!enst!enst.fr!not-for-mail From: "Grein, Christoph" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Discriminated record question Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:03:33 +0200 (MET DST) Organization: ENST, France Sender: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org Message-ID: Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: marvin.enst.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: avanie.enst.fr 1021525563 95973 137.194.161.2 (16 May 2002 05:06:03 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 05:06:03 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mail.eurocopter.com: uucp set sender to using -f Content-MD5: qcplX4tUdt+A8r8pW4dBbg== X-Mailer: dtmail 1.2.1 CDE Version 1.2.1 SunOS 5.6 sun4u sparc Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.8 Precedence: bulk X-Reply-To: "Grein, Christoph" List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: comp.lang.ada mail<->news gateway List-Unsubscribe: , Errors-To: comp.lang.ada-admin@ada.eu.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24157 Date: 2002-05-16T07:03:33+02:00 From: Jeffrey Carter > This is a case of the compiler being "correct but irritating". This is > related to compilers that are "correct but useless". In the latter case, > saying "Thank you. Your compiler is correct, but is unsuitable for our > needs. We are therefore evaluating other compilers for our project." > generally gets the vendor to sing a different tune. If you can honestly > say this to your vendor you may suddenly find yourself possessed of an > update that raises Storage_Error. But since this is only irritating, not > useless, it may not be worth the effort. I very much like the Rational Apex system, but sometimes Rational people have the attitude of saying: "We know how to do it correctly, you blockhead..."