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,d495ab2e69ad1962 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!198.186.194.247.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!panix!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!nntp.TheWorld.com!not-for-mail From: Robert A Duff Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ravenscar-compliant bounded buffer Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:47:55 -0400 Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Message-ID: References: <1188914005.607732.277400@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> <1188977891.197536.21660@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: shell01.theworld.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: pcls4.std.com 1189133275 21145 192.74.137.71 (7 Sep 2007 02:47:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@TheWorld.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 02:47:55 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Gnus/5.1008 (Gnus v5.10.8) Emacs/21.3 (irix) Cancel-Lock: sha1:A/Fc/Rwld7Ad2FyYPqHYWJNiMH8= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:1799 Date: 2007-09-06T22:47:55-04:00 List-Id: "Steve" writes: > "Robert A Duff" wrote in message > news:wccps0vkhvo.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... >> "Steve" writes: >> >>> Given the restriction, I found your example easy to follow. I don't know >>> where to find the Ravenscar document for comparison. >> >> The Ravenscar profile is documented in section D.13.1 of the latest Ada >> Reference Manual. >> > > Unless I'm looking the wrong place, section D.13.1 of the ARM (on AdaIC) > just lists the restrictions. Right. And then you can look up each restriction, and see what it specifically means. >...The original post was asking about the clarity > of an example in a specific document. Sorry. I guess I was confused about what you were asking for. >>> Ada 83 was restrictive in ways that were found to be overly restrictive >>> for >>> practical application. Some of these retrictions were relaxed with Ada >>> 95. >>> Perhaps the next round of Ravenscar will do the same. >> >> I don't see any need to relax Ravenscar, because if you want to use >> features not allowed by Ravenscar, you don't have to restrict yourself >> to Ravenscar. It's a free choice. I suppose we could argue about >> whether the exact set of restrictions is appropriate, but the whole >> point is to be restrictive, so the run-time system can be simplified (as >> compared to a run-time system that supports full Ada). > > The choice of the exact set of restrictions that are appropriate is what may > in practice make sense to change. After some experience with the > restrictions it may be found that a minor modification to one of the > restrictions may reduce complexity of implementations. Yes, it might. There's a trade-off in complexity of implementation (of the Ada run-time system) and complexity of applications. It's not at all clear (to me) where that line should be drawn. - Bob