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: 103376,8dea6f46dfb95f66 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Stephen Leake Subject: Re: Environment variables Date: 1996/11/04 Message-ID: <327DF7F2.2484@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 194316038 references: <55819q$mql@newslink.runet.edu> <327A0B58.65C4@gsfc.nasa.gov> content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA mime-version: 1.0 reply-to: Stephen.Leake@gsfc.nasa.gov newsgroups: comp.lang.ada x-mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (Win95; U) Date: 1996-11-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Bob Duff wrote: > > "Robert, you have a strange definition of "extension". I would say: This > *is* an extension to the language. Any Ada compiler can provide > extensions of this nature (additional useful packages). Other > extensions that are explicitly allowed by the RM are additional pragmas > and attributes. Most extensions are of course DISallowed by the RM. > > [snip] > Robert Dewar wrote: > This is just a matter of terminology of course, but by your definition ANY > package provided with a compiler is an extension (there is nothing special > about calling a package Ada.xxxx.yyy from this point of view). I do not > find it useful to use the word extension in conjunction with packages (is > it an extension of C if you allow C programs to call sockets stuff?) > > [snip] As the one that started this thread (by asking whether Ada.Command_Line.Environment was an `extension'), I'd like to say I agree with Robert Dewar's definition of `extension'; I was being sloppy. On the other hand, I think it would be reasonable to say that Ada.Command_Line.Environment is an extension of the "Ada 95 Predefined Language Environment", which is defined in Annex A of the RM; obviously, any package could be described this way, so it's not a very useful description. In any case, as Laurent pointed, out, it IS possible to tell from the sources that Ada.Command_Line.Environment is NOT defined by the Ada 95 RM, which is what I really wanted to know. However, it requires knowing what the commenting style is in packages that are defined in the RM. I think compiler-provided packages that are NOT defined by the RM should be more clearly labeled as such, to make it easier to know when we are being non-portable. -- - Stephe