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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,efe03f20164a417b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-03-23 12:31:11 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!rz.uni-karlsruhe.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!zombie.ncsc.mil!admii!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: An observation of Ada (may offend)
Date: 23 Mar 1995 00:47:08 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3kr20s$gqq@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <3kbkm1$41o@miranda.gmrc.gecm.com>
 <3kcflv$164a@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
 <EACHUS.95Mar20111527@spectre.mitre.org> <3knah2$p4m@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-03-23T00:47:08-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Regarding the suggestion:  pragma Restrictions(No_Unspecified_Child_Units)


Presumably the right form of this pragma is

   Pragma Child_UNits (unit, unit, unit);

with the meaning that only the named units would be allowed as children.
This is a perfectly legitimate pragma, and one that could be implemented.

But I wonder about this whole concern. After all you can always go and
edit out the "abs" of Norm's abs private, or add to the list of child
units in the above pragma.

No no, you say, your configuration management tool prevents this kind
of improper editing of the source. OK, if this is the case, then how
about this wonderful tool also restrict what child units can be supplied.

THe language can't do everything here!