Re: Ada to C++ translator?

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> writes:

> "Simon Wright" <simon@pushface.org> wrote in message
> news:x7vy9uz3eyd.fsf@smaug.pushface.org...
> > "Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com> writes:
> >
> > > "Brian Rogoff" <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Pine.BSF.4.21.0102211030150.7325-100000@shell5.ba.best.com...
> > > > I don't understand your complaint in the context of "now", since there
> are
> > > > Ada subsets (like SPARK) and I don't expect a Spanish Inquisition...
> > > > uh-oh :-)
> > > >
> > > There have *always* been subsets of Ada - they just couldn't be
> validated
> > > and were restricted from calling themselves "Ada".
> >
> > There's a difference between a compiler which doesn't support the full
> > language and a project choosing not to use the full language!
> 
> And your point would be? :-) Seriously, I understand there is a
> distinction, but I don't know that it makes any difference. SPARK is
> a chosen subset of Ada and I'd presume that if one bought the SPARK
> compiler that it would compile only the SPARK subset. (Or at least
> someone might choose to implement a compiler for SPARK that way.)

I'm sure it would be possible to produce a compiler switch that said
"only accept the SPARK subset", as GNAT does for the Ravenscar subset;
however, I don't think anyone has.

I may be wrong, but the process is (in part)

  write your code
  check it with the SPARK tools
  compile with your normal compiler

which is very like

  write your code
  inspect it for deviations from your project standards
  compile with your normal compiler

I'm sure we actually agree on this one at heart!