From: Shark8 <onewingedshark@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: GNAT and user-defined aspects and pragmas?
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2015 12:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: 2015-11-12T12:37:37-08:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <46a5f0e0-50a5-4f11-b8cf-57f7f320fcd7@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <n22p1b$66h$1@loke.gir.dk>
On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 12:24:28 PM UTC-7, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>
> Certain ARG members are highly confused. :-) Nothing that is an aspect ever
> should have been a pragma, and aspects should be considered a replacement
> for pragmas rather than some sort of parallel syntax.
About the only instance where should-have-been-aspects-pragmas make any sense is with Import and Export. Things like, say, OpenGL with its half-million (slight exaggeration) definitions of Color, would be done cleaner with the single Pragma Import than individual aspects.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-11-12 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-10 13:28 GNAT and user-defined aspects and pragmas? Jacob Sparre Andersen
2015-11-10 19:53 ` Dennis Lee Bieber
2015-11-11 9:29 ` Jacob Sparre Andersen
2015-11-12 19:24 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-11-12 20:37 ` Shark8 [this message]
2015-11-12 21:42 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-11-13 10:03 ` J-P. Rosen
2015-11-11 11:14 ` Simon Wright
2015-11-12 19:27 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-11-13 8:51 ` J-P. Rosen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox