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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,d6f7b92fd11ab291
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-17 20:15:42 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny02.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030708 Thunderbird/0.1a
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Crosspost: Help wanted from comp.compilers
References: <bf04rc$hfl@library2.airnews.net>
 <1058275843.720814@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <bf1qji$312@library1.airnews.net>
 <Zw3Ra.224$7O.71@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <3F158832.1040206@attbi.com>
 <1058378673.35463@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <bf4f1p$eve@library2.airnews.net>
 <1058390613.119827@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <bf58ui$51k@library2.airnews.net>
 <L1qRa.2504$7O.825@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>
 <slrnbhcsbl.jt.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <2OERa.4718$0F4.3216@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <bf7iiq$e64@library1.airnews.net>
In-Reply-To: <bf7iiq$e64@library1.airnews.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <wDJRa.5501$0F4.1836@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 03:15:40 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 162.83.157.195
X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net
X-Trace: nwrdny02.gnilink.net 1058498140 162.83.157.195 (Thu,
 17 Jul 2003 23:15:40 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 23:15:40 EDT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40450
Date: 2003-07-18T03:15:40+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

John R. Strohm wrote:
> Where we seem to disagree is that you seem to be believe that only changes
> to source code can produce changes to semantics, and that those changes
> should only propagate through one level of inheritance ('with').

What I believe is that people hated their compilers for doing stuff
like this, and that lengthy recompilation was such an issue that it
became part of the design specs for Ada95. Obviously you can come up
with situations where funny flag settings could require dependents
to be recompiled, but that's not really an excuse for poor quality of
implementation.

 > (Incidentally, this is not far from the example that Jean Ichbiah
 > himself gave when asked why Ada required recompilation of all
 > dependents if a spec that had not changed was recompiled.)

Where does Ada require this?