Re: calenday (was Re: IBM Acquires Rational Ada

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

Robert A Duff wrote in message ...
>"Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org> writes:
>>...You'd end up building two
>> totally different infrastructures and should one of your 90% ever
change and
>> the compiler refuse to help, you're rebuilding something
dramatically.
>
>Hahah!  So you *do* care about portability!  (To newer versions of the
>same compiler, at least.)  In any case, I think the RM should tell you
>which rep clauses are legal, rather than tripping over
>implementation-dependent compiler error messages.  I think you agree
>with that...


OK, so why did you refuse to work further on the AIs defining this. :-)
:-)

In fairness to Bob, the ARG struggled with these issues (the
"recommended level of support") for years. But a consensus on the
answers could never be reached. Part of the problem has been that new
members tend to vote against the solutions proposed. They have to be
personally talked into the solution. But that, to me, indicates the
rules are too complex -- nothing should require a personal chat with the
designers before it can be agreed to.

So while I tend to agree with Bob that the RM should tell you, I
disagree with him on WHAT it should tell you. And I suspect that that
will never change, as there are as at least as many correct answers as
there are targets and compiler implementors.

                Randy.