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,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't.
Date: 1996/03/22
Message-ID: <4iuerk$113p@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143722489
distribution: world
references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4iq71v$cvr@news4.digex.net>
  <dewar.827374356@schonberg> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
  <Don8H5.AKI@world.std.com> <dewar.827467035@schonberg>
 <4xohpp8nzj.fsf@leibniz.enst-bretagne.fr> <dewar.827495863@schonberg>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.827495863@schonberg>, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: 

|> As for portability, note that we already implement
|>
|> pragma Restrictions (No_GNAT_Attributes)
|> pragma Restrictions (No_GNAT_Pragmas)

Presumably No_GNAT_Pragmas prohibits GNAT-defined pragma names, but not
GNAT-defined pragma ARGUMENTS (such as No_GNAT_Pragmas).

Or would a more accurate restriction name have been
No_More_GNAT_Pragmas_After_This_One?

;-)

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com