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: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-20 17:32:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!gestalt.direcpc.com!cyclone2.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr30.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Pat Rogers" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com> <3c639940@pull.gecm.com> <4519e058.0202080714.1bf916bb@posting.google.com> <3C65BFF4.F15A07D0@earthlink.net> <3C7324BF.996E182B@adaworks.com> Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.191.180.40 X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net X-Trace: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com 1014255066 ST000 208.191.180.40 (Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:31:06 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:31:06 EST Organization: Prodigy Internet http://www.prodigy.com X-UserInfo1: FKPO@MC@@S@USVT^ORHL_IXBUSXHQD\MNPWZKB]MPXHJUZ]CDVW[AKK[J\]^HVKHG^EWZHBLO^[\NH_AZFWGN^\DHNVMX_DHHX[FSQKBOTS@@BP^]C@RHS_AGDDC[AJM_T[GZNRNZAY]GNCPBDYKOLK^_CZFWPGHZIXW@C[AFKBBQS@E@DAZ]VDFUNTQQ]FN Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 01:31:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20191 Date: 2002-02-21T01:31:06+00:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" 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