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: 103376,5894fe67040038b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-26 19:56:15 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version Date: 26 Nov 2001 19:56:15 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0111261956.3df9b8e3@posting.google.com> References: <9s9iti$g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5ee5b646.0111081953.31e2633c@posting.google.com> <5ee5b646.0111121351.27897bc4@posting.google.com> <9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com> <9tsd63$4jjng$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <5ee5b646.0111260742.2a0d9357@posting.google.com> <9tu7nj$4v9lc$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1006833375 5741 127.0.0.1 (27 Nov 2001 03:56:15 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 2001 03:56:15 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17018 Date: 2001-11-27T03:56:15+00:00 List-Id: "Nick Roberts" wrote in message news:<9tu7nj$4v9lc$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>... >> There is no point in using the same attribute >> name for two different purposes. > > Yes there is: simplicity. That's a really peculiar view, confusing two separate concepts by using the same name certainly does not make things simpler, quite the contrary. > > Also, extending the meaning of 'Version would be a > > language > > extension that would create a non-conforming variant of > > Ada. > > No it wouldn't. Nick, you really don't know the RM well enough. You are completely and 100% wrong on this. Please don't make such statements without carefully checking. There is far too much misinformation on this newsgroup. Section 2.8 of the RM is perfectly clear. The only implementation permission is to add implementation dependent pragmas, and the name is required to be different from any other pragma. This is really not a hard rule to find! 14 An implementation may provide implementation-defined pragmas; the name of an implementation-defined pragma shall differ from those of the language-defined pragmas. Changing the meaning of an existing pragma, by extension or otherwise is DEFINITELY a non-conforming language change. That's perfectly clear from the RM. > I'm sorry, but the confusion in this case is all yours, > Robert! Really Nick, you must spend more time reading the RM *carefully* and avoid spreading misinformation!