Re: Renaming entries?

[robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com]

In article <7afc1p$3mi$3@plug.news.pipex.net>,
  "Nick Roberts" <Nick.Roberts@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
> So, the solution to your problem is to use
>
>    pragma Convention(Entry,Fred);
>
> in the package specification, and all will be well.

Well this is yet another example that you can't trust
everything you see on CLA, and readers are well cautioned
not to assume any published solutions here are correct.

Nick, I strongly suggest that you quickly compile things
you suggest. If they don't compile, perhaps you should
keep staring at the RM longer (the same RM that everyone
things is such a revealing source of information
on errors :-)

If you had compiled this suggestion with GNAT you would
have got something like:

  3.   pragma Convention (entry, q);
                          |
     >>> reserved word "entry" cannot be used as identifier

This is a correct message from GNAT, since your
suggestion is definitely illegal.

> Now all I need is a spiral-bound RM that doesn't keep ON
> CLOSING ITSELF

Well you will have to open it again to figure out
why GNAT is correct here. If you need an RM reference, the
appropriate one is RM 2.3(4):

    4   An identifier shall not be a reserved word.

This is a rather nice example of why RM references are not
always helpful :-)

Robert Dewar


-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own