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: 103376,7fc767abbf17c947
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Norman H. Cohen" <ncohen@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Parsing a line into strings
Date: 1998/07/14
Message-ID: <35AB96E3.2338@watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 371400401
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <35A3A199.D55C3153@oit.edu> <m3ogv0jm7b.fsf@zaphod.enst.fr>
 <35A3AB67.9039CBA9@oit.edu> <35A40A94.6DB73E65@chat.ru>
 <Pine.BSF.3.96.980708161520.6018A-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <6o14rm$3nv@drn.newsguy.com> <dewar.899956473@merv>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Mime-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-07-14T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote:

> One extra features that GNAT implements that I *do* think all vendors
> should implement is two extra Restriction identifiers:
> 
>    pragma Restrictions (No_Implementation_Pragmas);
>    pragma Restrictions (No_Implementation_Attributes);
> 
> which respectively prevent any use of implementation dependent
> pragmas or attributes.

No_Implementation_Pragmas rules out implementation-defined pragmas, but
not implementation-defined arguments to language-defined pragmas.  For
that, GNAT would have to define

	pragma Restrictions (No_Implementation_Pragma_Arguments);

-- 
Norman H. Cohen