Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:00:41 -0600 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
[log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>GNAT is not fully conformant to all the semantics required for
>>>
>validation
>
>>>in it's default mode, and rightly so, I believe. [..]"
>>>
>>Err, why does this seem to be a plus point to you?
>>
>
>It's not a major issue for me, but my personal opinion is that the defaults
>should
>pass validation, and people who need the performance boost of turning off
>any
>kind of checking should have to do it intentionally.
>
Well, that's probably true. In this particular case, I remember the
GNAT documentation argues that the cost of this check is pretty high,
and the number of times it's likely to cause a problem is pretty low, so
the check is not high-value, but it is high cost. Maybe someone at ACT
is listening and can comment?
-Corey
|
|
|