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: 103376,896d86ef3723978c
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Samuel Mize <smize@link.com>
Subject: Re: maintenance of overriding subprograms
Date: 1997/09/12
Message-ID: <34196D9A.740E@link.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 271894424
References: <340C2EA5.B9F@gsfc.nasa.gov> <340DCE1D.6C5F@bix.com>
 <dewar.873631018@merv> <5v3dlu$pgu$1@miso.it.uq.edu.au>
 <dewar.873939443@merv> <5v87gd$r00$1@miso.it.uq.edu.au>
 <5vau2k$psf$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: Hughes Training Inc.
Reply-To: smize@link.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
> A way of saying "forbid this identifier whenever this other identifier
> is in use" would be less prone to abuse.  Point is, whichever it is,
> it shouldn't be limited to a handful of built-in words.

Certainly there could be a separate tool that checks for this,
if you want it checked in your environment.  At the simplest
level, set up a list of "forbidden" words and automate a grep
for them.  A more Ada-aware tool could be built using the
output of a cross-reference tool or a commercial front-end
parser.

I certainly don't think it belongs in the language definition!

Sam Mize