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-Thread: 103376,c21db05aee31ddfc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Direct Quote from the RM References: From: Markus E L Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 13:57:41 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:C+ZDuMLCI3R4T8wtZrMAOB0dlE4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.72.228.148 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1195390262 88.72.228.148 (18 Nov 2007 13:51:02 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!62.111.101.3.MISMATCH!news.germany.com!news.unit0.net!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18478 Date: 2007-11-18T13:57:41+01:00 List-Id: 'anon AT anon DOT org (anon)' wrote: > Paragraph of 10 from Design Goal. > > 10 No language can avoid the problem of efficiency. Languages that > require over-elaborate compilers, or that lead to the inefficient use > of storage or execution time, force these inefficiencies on all > machines and on all programs. Every construct of the language was > examined in the light of present implementation techniques. Any > proposed construct whose implementation was unclear or that > required excessive machine resources was rejected. > > "Any proposed construct whose implementation was unclear or that required > excessive machine resources was rejected." That statement suggest that > "gnatmake" in using requires 5 complete programs to be loaded at one time > just to compile a single routine or package when 3 to 3 will do should be > rejected! Since when is gnatmake a "construct of the language"? Furthermore the text describes the (past) design process of Ada language and does (as I understand it) not impose requirements on the compiler/tool implementation. That would be the difference between "was rejected" and "shall rejected" AFAI understand. - M