TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:00:33 -0500
Reply-To:
"W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
> >I think the relevant section is the LRM section 13.9.1

Just curious.  Long, long ago, in a company far, far away,
we were NOT getting constraint error that we thought we
should at an assignment statement.

The vendor's argument was that if you traced back the origin of the right
side far enough, you'd find an unchecked conversion, therefore no checks
were necessary.

Our argument was that the compiler could not trace back that far, since
that would require all the bodies to be compiled at the same time as the
specs, therefore the compiler had no business skipping checks at the
various calls along the way.

Opinions?  (not that it matters now)

--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau

ATOM RSS1 RSS2