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: 2002-02-25 12:25:43 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 14:26:46 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <u7l7e7hosfvs75@corp.supernews.com>
References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com>
 <DRxVLK5K93Eq@eisner.encompasserve.org> <u750go7j0d1v7e@corp.supernews.com>
 <G5qqkyGimkeC@eisner.encompasserve.org> <3C7324BF.996E182B@adaworks.com>
 <crKc8.703$OD1.124126259@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>
 <u77m1kircnen46@corp.supernews.com>
 <ZTQc8.51466$lT5.3914605627@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <u78hac6o7iku15@corp.supernews.com>
 <IIsd8.60275$Y8.4279089199@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>
 <u7ddjt7jko763b@corp.supernews.com>
 <5ee5b646.0202231504.5903c583@posting.google.com>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3612.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3719.2500
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:20393
Date: 2002-02-25T14:26:46-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote in message
<5ee5b646.0202231504.5903c583@posting.google.com>...

>So it is always the case that you have to choose a compiler
>that takes a reasonable pragmatic approach to everything,
>where YOU define what reasonable means!
>
>I know well this argument about UC and 'Valid, I consider
>it specious :-)

Well, this seems to be a slippery slope argument; essentially you are
saying that it is OK to write erroneous code as long as your compiler
"does the right thing". That seems to me to be a bad precedent; we want
to make as easy as possible for people to write code that is portable
and depends on compiler support only in well-defined ways. RM 1.1.3(3
and 6) allow programs to be rejected, but those are clearly indicated
problems; if a compiler does the "wrong" thing with erroneous code,
there is not going to be any indication to the developer.

                Randy.