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-Thread: 103376,67bb3e29a77c25c6
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Received: by 10.68.8.135 with SMTP id r7mr50095415pba.8.1317439467688;
        Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:24:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 lh7ni8740pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!18g2000yqz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: pragma Pure (Ada)
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:09:19 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <680ee5ee-85c2-4d7a-901b-528a7d0db8a3@18g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.v2ngqmo3ule2fv@index.ici>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1317439467 1717 127.0.0.1 (1 Oct 2011 03:24:27
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 03:24:27 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: 18g2000yqz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: ARLUEHNKC
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 Trident/4.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR
 3.5.21022; .NET CLR 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18254
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: 2011-09-30T20:09:19-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Sep 30, 6:50=A0pm, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> In =93A Brief Introduction to Ada 2012=94 (a great paper from John Barnes=
) ->http://www2.adacore.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Ada2012_Rational_I..=
.
>
> On page 12, you may read
>
> > Ada 95 introduced the package Ada thus
> > =A0 =A0package Ada is
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 pragma Pure(Ada);
> > =A0 =A0end Ada;
> > However, a close reading of the RM revealed that poor Ada
> > is illegal since the pragma Pure is not in one of the allowed
> > places for a pragma.
>
> Does that mean that this was really illegal from strict layers point of =
=A0
> view ? So GNAT was hacked ?

It's not fair to say GNAT was hacked.  Everybody knew that this code
was supposed to be legal.  It's just it was illegal according to a
literal reading of the RM rules that nobody noticed until I think I
discovered it while I was trying to look over the rules carefully to
answer a different question.  So the RM rules were clearly worded
wrong and had to be changed.

                           -- Adam