Le 06.06.2017 à 19:34, Jeffrey R. Carter a écrit : > On 06/06/2017 06:13 PM, Gautier de Montmollin wrote: >> Anyway, the reason of my message is that the concerned part is in >> Gnoga.*, not in my own program. >> > The reason for my message is to point out that, unless you're sure about all > of > the code in your program, you'd better not suppress checks. Could not agree more! But again, it is not my program. > The only justification for suppressing checks is that there's no other way to > meet the timing requirements. In many decades of using languages with run-time > checks, I've never encountered such a situation. Lucky you!
Now, you cannot expect everybody not having to suppress checks at any point in time. Since Gnoga is meant to be a library for a broad usage (the 'o' in "omnificent") and used by various people, it is better to make it bullet-proof and work with different sets of GNAT options - even those you don't like or, in this special case, make the RTL not compliant with the Ada standard. G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot _______________________________________________ Gnoga-list mailing list Gnoga-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gnoga-list
