TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
Corey Minyard <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 7 Nov 2001 10:00:41 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
MIME-Version:
1.0
Reply-To:
Corey Minyard <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (25 lines)
[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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2