Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

Thanks Jean-Pierre for the idea, Nevertheless, I propose to postpone all these sort of changes (breaking interface and so on) to version 2.0. Regards, Pascal. http://blady.pagesperso-orange.fr > Le 31 janv. 2017 à 10:09, Jean-Pierre Rosen a écrit : > > Le 30/01/2017 à

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

Le 12/11/2016 à 19:17, Pascal a écrit : > Amazing result with just a dozen of rules :-) I often say that my clients hate me - when they discover the number of violations that passed through their careful hand reviews... > Few comments on result: > > - gnoga-types-colors.adb:10:1: Error:

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

Le 19/10/2016 à 23:22, David Botton a écrit : > I would add that in all cases Gnoga must compile and work with the FSF > GNAT versions readily available for Windows, Mac, Linux and BSDs. The > reason I add this is that in no way should Gnoga ever be dependant on > GPL GNAT features not available

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

I would add that in all cases Gnoga must compile and work with the FSF GNAT versions readily available for Windows, Mac, Linux and BSDs. The reason I add this is that in no way should Gnoga ever be dependant on GPL GNAT features not available in the true free versions. On a related note, I would

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

Many thanks for all contributions. I'd like to add two points: Compiler: Interface shall not be compiler dependent and implementation should not be compiler dependent. Language: The Ada language standard used is Ada 2012 without restrictions. PS : as one may have understood, these Gnoga

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:25 PM, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > Le 16/10/2016 à 19:54, Jeffrey R. Carter a écrit : > >> I'm OK for disabling assertions, but not other checks > (constraint_error...) > > I'm for leaving them all on. > When I said "assertions", I meant all forms of

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

On 10/17/2016 07:54 AM, marci...@earthlink.net wrote: > Ugh :( While you will get no argument from me, I think it fair to point out that the guidelines have to fit with the existing Gnoga code by Botton, which uses such redundant suffices extensively. -- Jeff Carter "When Roman engineers built

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

-Original Message- >From: Pascal <blady-...@users.sf.net> >Sent: Oct 15, 2016 5:06 AM >To: Gnoga support list <gnoga-list@lists.sourceforge.net> >Subject: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines. > ... > Ada type entity is ending with "_

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

On 10/16/2016 10:25 PM, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote: > When I said "assertions", I meant all forms of assertions (including > Pre/Post), not just pragma Assert. > > The trouble is that sometimes, the post-condition needs more > computations than the subprogram being described. Such conditions should

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

On 10/15/2016 02:06 AM, Pascal wrote: > Version numbering: > m.n with m major version number , n minor version number. > -alpha is added on m.n when this version is created, to be used without any > warranty. > -beta is added on m.n when this version is enough mature to be tested. > Then a letter

Re: [Gnoga-list] Proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines.

Le 15/10/2016 à 11:06, Pascal a écrit : > Here is a proposal for Gnoga coding guidelines: > > Version numbering: m.n with m major version number , n minor version > number. -alpha is added on m.n when this version is created, to be > used without any warranty. -beta is added on m.n when this