This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ada policy
- From: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
- To: Kai Henningsen <kaih at khms dot westfalen dot de>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 13:32:57 -0400
- Subject: Re: Ada policy
- References: <10408301022.AA24170@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> <1093974895.17130.192.camel@pc.site> <87acwb2n6j.fsf@codesourcery.com> <87acwb2n6j.fsf@codesourcery.com> <4134C6C4.5090103@gnat.com> <9G2BR4Gmw-B@khms.westfalen.de>
It must be some other dewar who said
"we do it this way because
the other way is not practical"
With respect to using portable Ada for large
projects. I said nothing of the kind. Yes of
course it would be practical to write GNAT in
portable Ada. It would also be practical to write
it in C++, but that does not mean it would be a
good idea in this case.
The bogus logic is to assume the following
syllogism which doesn't just have a divided
middle, it has no middle :-)
GNAT is written in non-portable Ada
GNAT is a large project
Therefore it is impractical to write large projects
in portable Ada.
I have given lots of arguments and discussion to tell you
why we decided to use GNAT extensions in writing GNAT. Nowhere
among these arguments and discussions is any hint that one of
the reasons was that it was impractical to use portable Ada!