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: a07f3367d7,9983e856ed268154 X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Received: by 10.66.74.40 with SMTP id q8mr1803879pav.19.1344848466498; Mon, 13 Aug 2012 02:01:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: p10ni51394108pbh.1!nntp.google.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news-in-01.newsfeed.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!novia!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!80.86.168.138.MISMATCH!news-feed.eu.lambdanet.net!texta.sil.at!news.glorb.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.vt.edu!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec? Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 10:33:42 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <501bd285$0$6564$9b4e6d93@newsspool4.arcor-online.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Trace: pcls6.std.com 1344263622 9558 192.74.137.71 (6 Aug 2012 14:33:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:33:42 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:UBpS6XhVl8lcaVQNW10mjaztb6s= X-Received-Bytes: 3085 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: 2012-08-06T10:33:42-04:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" writes: > We had this discussion on the ARG list ()last fall, I think), and we pretty > much agreed that it could. (I don't think you ever agreed, but there's > plenty of evidence in the RM - I'm not going to waste my time looking it up > again. You didn't believe the evidence that was presented last time, but you > were clearly wrong then and you still are. :-) OK, I don't remember the details of that discussion. You might be right. Or maybe I was right, and everybody else on ARG was wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ;-) I looked in the RM yesterday, and it says there are two types of dependences, and it defines them pretty clearly, and Inline doesn't figure into either one. > It's not illegal, it fails to link. If it's not illegal, then the implementation is required to run it. See RM-1.1.3: 1 A conforming implementation shall: 2 * Translate and correctly execute legal programs written in Ada, provided that they are not so large as to exceed the capacity of the implementation; Or are you claiming that this Inline business falls under the "exceed the capacity" loophole (which is admittedly a loophole through which one could drive a truck)? >... That's pretty different! (Everyone else: > sorry, this is language-lawyer talk.) There's no "fails to link" in the RM. There's a concept of "legal" both for compilation units, and for entire programs. Anyway, regardless of what the RM says, surely an optimization hint like Inline shouldn't prevent a program from running properly. Especially if it's implementation dependent. That would be a serious language design flaw. If you like, show us an example of one of these "fails to link" cases. Or don't bother -- it's really not that important. - Bob