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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,d3447e1f384e2115 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: cgreen@yosemite.atc.com (Christopher Green) Subject: Re: Placement of pragma Convention Date: 1997/06/23 Message-ID: <5omp0v$pj@newshub.atmnet.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 252089388 References: <5oervk$g07@newshub.atmnet.net> Organization: Advanced Technology Center, Laguna Hills, CA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Tucker Taft wrote: >Despite my affiliation, GNAT is in the right on this one. >A program unit pragma may follow the program unit only if the >program unit is a subprogram_declaration, generic_subprogram_declaration, >or generic instantiation (10.1.5(4,6)). In all other cases, it needs to be >immediately inside the program unit. Although a "subprogram_body" >is considered to be a "declaration," it is *not* within the category >"subprogram_declaration," and so any program unit pragma must >be immediately inside it, rather than following it. Thank you, Tucker, for your clear and complete explanation. I see the point; however, the distinction between a declaration of a subprogram and a subprogram_declaration seems to me a fine one. Chris Green Email cgreen@atc.com Advanced Technology Center Phone (714) 583-9119 22982 Mill Creek Drive ext. 220 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Fax (714) 583-9213