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,
	T_FILL_THIS_FORM_SHORT 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: 1995-03-25 18:37:56 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!news.rwth-aachen.de!news.rhrz.uni-bonn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!zib-berlin.de!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: 25 Mar 1995 12:58:50 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3l1lkq$pm6@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> <3kr20s$gqq@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
 <EACHUS.95Mar23113811@spectre.mitre.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-03-25T12:58:50-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert, pragma Child_Units (not) indeed!

where did your syntax rules for Ada go? this really won't do at all :-)

what do others think of the pragma Child_Units, I think I would actually
have:

  pragma No_Child_Units;

for the completely restrictive case, since pragma Child_Units; with no 
argument is not very communicative, and pragma Child_Units (not) is, as
pointed out above, unacceptable.

For those who did not see the original post, the exact proposal is now
as follows:

   Any package spec may contain one occurrence of either of the following
   pragmas (but not both!)

   pragma No_Child_Units;
   --  Any attempt to compile a child unit is rejected

   pragma Child_Units (name, name, name ...)

   --  Only the given child units can be compiled