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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c7ea1cb7a2beb2ee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Disallowing Pre-Defined Operations
Date: 2000/03/13
Message-ID: <8ajenv$8c8$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 596957874
References: <8a9eeg$qtv$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil>
 <8ababr$c3u$1@wanadoo.fr><8afhed$f9v$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil>
 <wcc8zzop2ib.fsf@world.std.com> <8aia0k$csf6@ftp.kvaerner.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x42.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Mon Mar 13 19:15:16 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.61 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 2000-03-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8aia0k$csf6@ftp.kvaerner.com>,
  "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> wrote:
> I would think that pragmas would be an ideal way to explore
such a
> functionality. If they were useful, then it would be
apropriate to extend the
> language.


Not in a case where

a) it is entirely redundant, since it duplicates a feature
already in the language.

b) it significantly violates the design viewpoint of pragmas
which is that they should NOT affect illegality.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.