From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,de68e4ddf10693
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen)
Subject: Re: Multiple pragma Imports
Date: 1998/12/27
Message-ID: <1998Dec27.083157.1@eisner>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 426152662
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org
References: <762u9n$kfn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <F4LKJL.7z@jvdsys.stuyts.nl>
X-Trace: news.decus.org 914765520 26156 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2]
Organization: LJK Software
Reply-To: Kilgallen@eisner.decus.org.nospam
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-12-27T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <F4LKJL.7z@jvdsys.stuyts.nl>, jerry@jvdsys.stuyts.nl (Jerry van Dijk) writes:

> To get the behaviour I would like to see, the interfacing pragmas should
> somehow be able to discern between the different subprogram signatures.
> Maybe this calls for some extended interfacing pragma form, to be 
> implemented by general consensus. 

The real world need is vanishingly small for calling external
subprograms which share a name but not interface characteristics.

Larry Kilgallen