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!reader02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Interesting article on ARG work Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 16:13:22 +0200 Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server Message-ID: References: <1b44444f-c1b3-414e-84fb-8798961487c3@googlegroups.com> <62ee0aac-49da-4925-b9aa-a16695b3fc45@googlegroups.com> <9879872e-c18a-4667-afe5-41ce0f54559f@googlegroups.com> <80db2d05-744f-4201-ba1b-4436f8040491@googlegroups.com> <59f9ab6d-d6ba-45ff-a6f0-c5699983d9e8@googlegroups.com> <1a390e22-f49f-4028-8e58-ca4d0f51e4b6@googlegroups.com> <8fca2fed-2721-48dc-95e5-5b98e7c1fa70@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: MyFhHs417jM9AgzRpXn7yg.user.gioia.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3 Content-Language: en-US Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:51412 Date: 2018-04-09T16:13:22+02:00 List-Id: On 09/04/2018 15:40, Dan'l Miller wrote: > On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 2:43:46 AM UTC-5, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: >> On 09/04/2018 05:50, Dan'l Miller wrote: >> >>> I am saying that you are 100% incorrect that only the presence or only the absence of the @-code will be compiled in the most-exemplary implementation, leaving the other uncompiled variant to bit-rot uncompiled for extended periods of time. >> >> I didn't say that. > > Oh yes you did by examples, where you (and even enlisting the late Ichbiah at one point) give examples of bit-rot where some unwise programmer of @-code left a presence/absence branch of the @-code uncompilable henceforth. Your examples were clearly making the case that Mr. Unwise Programmer was going to stink up the codebase with @-code that was compiled only with @-code present that would break in would-be builds where @-code was absent that Mr. Unwise Programmer cavalierly failed to test-build, but that the next beleaguered programmer would need to rectify upon building with @-code absent. Your entire premise was based on the mistaken claim that the build-time would not build both presence and absence of the @-code in one shot to show Mr. Unwise Programmer the error of his ways right then and there upfront in his face. Let us look at 2 of those examples: > > Dmitry wrote on 08 April 2018: >> More complicated rules are required for declarations, e.g. that >> conditionally declared entities would not be visible outside conditional >> code: >> >> declare >> @ X : Integer; >> Y : Integer; >> begin >> Y := X; -- This is illegal >> @ Y := X; -- This is OK >> end; >> >> or >> >> @ with Text_IO; >> use Text_IO; -- No, that does not work Both examples present would be illegal code. What is your point? To have it legal? -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de