TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:31:59 -0500
Reply-To: Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
From: Samuel Mize <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> from "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" at Oct 19, 98 08:59:02 am
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (37 lines)
W. Wesley Groleau x4923 wrote:
> I met a guy who is definitely anti-Ada and pro-C.  Unfortunately, he is
> now a support person for an Ada vendor.  Recently he responded to a bug
> report as follows:

You might point out that the 'size attribute is intended to be used
with the rest of the language, e.g. with representation clauses and
packed records.  In this usage the size of the actual representation
is what matters.  And in fact, the more-precise definition is the
meaning one can use to derive the other -- you can't go from rounded
storage units to bit size.

The original wording was ambiguous; some vendors provided one meaning,
some the other.  Ada 95 required everyone to provide the same meaning
for the attribute.

General question: which compilers provided which meaning?  Perhaps
the better compilers were already consistent with the precise meaning.

I'd also notify the vendor that their support people are running down
their own choice of product line.  If this is an institutional
attitude, I'd avoid this vendor's Ada products if at all possible.  I
can't see how you could expect good products or good corporate support
from a company that thinks it's a bad idea to use its own products.

Sam Mize

Samuel Mize -- [log in to unmask] (home email) -- Team Ada
Fight Spam: see \\\ Smert Spamonam