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: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-27 14:20:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!zeus.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!green.octanews.net!news-out.octanews.net!cox.net!news-xfer.cox.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news.uunet.ca!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?) References: <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com> <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com> <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com> <401115B7.5020205@noplace.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:05:59 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1075241106 198.96.223.163 (Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:05:06 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:05:06 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4949 Date: 2004-01-27T17:05:59-05:00 List-Id: Robert I. Eachus wrote: > Robert I. Eachus wrote: > >> My point was that we can fix System to some extent, since Strings can >> now be static. Of course there is NO universal solution because on >> some systems some values will be static, and on others they won't be >> known until run-time. But if we "fix" System so that the compiler can >> document such things, then users will be able to do what they can do. > > Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote: > >> I hate "no universal solution" fixes. I hate having to revist >> things multiple times. I hate preprocessors too, but I hate >> the other issues more. > > I think you misunderstood what I was saying here. On some systems > memory size is static. This is common in embedded systems, the RAM may > be part of the CPU chip. In that case users would want the compiler to > use a static value for memory size. But on a PC, if I stick another > DIMM in and reboot, I want my (previously compiled) program to see the > right memory size. So a compiler targeting a PC should use a system > call to get the memory size at run-time. That was what I meant by "no > universal solution." We (the ARG) should give Implementation Advice > about when the values in package System should be static and when they > should use a system call. But the choice should be left to the > implementor, because he knows the characteristics of the actual target. OK, understood now. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://ve3wwg.tk