Re: RFC: merge std-operator.def and ada-operator.def?

[Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>]

> I am not so in favor of it.  Anything than can be made more specific with the
> same user-visible functionality should be made so.  It simplifies maintenance.
> This is the exact reason why I wanted to mark them as OP_ADA_*.
> 
> I understand putting the code into generic parts is easier for you.

I am not doing this because it makes it easier for me; what started
this was the realization that some of the code looks unnecessarily
complex, or not even necessary at all. While I agree with you on
the general principle that language-specific features should be
clearly marked, in this case, I draw from Tom and I's experience with
the type handling and the language vector. Part of the language vector
and the associated complexity would be unnecessary if Ada was more
standard, rather than some side-entity that needs to be plugged into
the core system.

That being said, it's not terribly important to me that some opcodes
are going to be labeled "ADA". It's going to be a bit of a pain for
a while to keep AdaCore's sources in sync, but not difficult. So let's
not discuss this too much and decide what we want to do:

    1. Do we want to go with the propose patch series (merging the def
       files, and then simplifying a bit the code afterwards)?

    2. Do we want to rename the Ada opcodes? I can do that as a third
       patch, for instance.

-- 
Joel