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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1983ae2deb642ab X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-25 04:09:06 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada -vs- GNAT Date: 25 May 2002 04:09:06 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0205250309.7ec9d0c@posting.google.com> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.244 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1022324946 15847 127.0.0.1 (25 May 2002 11:09:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2002 11:09:06 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24746 Date: 2002-05-25T11:09:06+00:00 List-Id: "Steve Doiel" wrote in message news:... > Since I am not currently a supported customer of ACT, I have no grounds to > complain, but am interested in what other people think. Seeing as a) many/most of the implementation dependent pragmas/atttributes come from customer requests b) we never have had the experience of supported customers complaining about extra features that they don't have to use. Probably this is because large serious Ada projects are very careful to specify what features they can or cannot use, and very clear about portability requirements [for many of our customers running their apps on non-GNAT compilers is not an issue] It's probably not relevant. The important rule is not to use implementation dependent features if you don't want to be dependent on the implementation. That's a pretty simple rule to follow (and trivial to follow in the case of pragmas and attributes as noted previously.