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

Reply via email to