Re: Refactoring and Ada

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> wrote in message
news:u78hac6o7iku15@corp.supernews.com...
> >No, I was asking for the exegesis in terms of the RM for Richard's much
> more
> >sweeping "comdemnation" of the attribute.  ("Condemnation" is too
> strong here,
> >but you get the idea.)
>
> Reading AI-167 might help some
> (http://www.ada-auth.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/AIs/AI-00167.TXT?rev=1.5).
> But this AI is still under construction (it is not, and never has been,
> approved, contrary to the statement of someone else here), and
> undoubtably will change.

Thanks, though, anyway -- interesting reading.

> We (the ARG) spent a couple of hours discussing this at the recent ARG
> meeting (which Richard attended), but I'm not sure that we're really any
> closer to a resolution. The main problem is that the obvious solutions
> have an unacceptable performance cost for applications that don't put
> invalid values through Unchecked_Conversion.
>
> The problem rule is 13.9.1(12), which makes the CALL to
> Unchecked_Conversion erroneous if the result is invalid. And this rule
> is intended (I forget why, Bob?).

OK, I didn't get that -- the fact that the *call* is erroenous in that
situation.

> This was the last item discussed on Monday, so the desire to go to
> dinner may have pushed us to a resolution that won't hold up.

I'm familiar with the related "concensus by exhaustion".  :-)


Pat