From: Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/26
Date: 1996-02-26T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3131BCD1.832@lfwc.lockheed.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: dewar.825179042@schonberg
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Yes, that's certainly fine in Ada 95. If you want to stay Ada 83
> compatible...
>
[other example snipped]
I figured that the pragma Elaborate_Body would work with Ada 83 as well, in
that the pragma would be ignored and the body allowed. If you're saying that
the second example is safer in Ada 83, since you can't "forget" to compile
the body, then I understand.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-02-26 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-02-22 0:00 Ada 95 Compatibility John Herro
1996-02-22 0:00 ` Mark A Biggar
1996-02-23 0:00 ` PHILIP W. BRASHEAR
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Peter Amey
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-02-24 0:00 ` John Herro
1996-02-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington [this message]
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox