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,cae92f92d6a1d4b1
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada.Execution_Time
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 12:09:41 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <8f71fc46-eec0-4c98-b6fd-b9d275d7a496@h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com>
References: <ie1ih9$d02$1@news.eternal-september.org>
 <op.vno2nwchlzeukk@jellix.jlfencey.com>
 <ie8hdi$2f3j$1@news.ett.com.ua>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1292357381 11872 127.0.0.1 (14 Dec 2010 20:09:41
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:09:41 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: h17g2000pre.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 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: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:16911
Date: 2010-12-14T12:09:41-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Dec 14, 11:43=A0am, a...@att.net wrote:

> In Ada 95 .. 2012 states:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Implementation Require=
ments
>
> 13 =A0 =A0The implementation shall give a warning message for an unrecogn=
ized
> pragma name.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Implementation Permiss=
ions
>
> 15 =A0 =A0An implementation may ignore an unrecognized pragma even if it =
violates
> some of the Syntax Rules, if detecting the syntax error is too complex.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Implementation Ad=
vice
>
> 16 =A0 =A0Normally, implementation-defined pragmas should have no semanti=
c effect
> for error-free programs; that is, if the implementation-defined pragmas a=
re
> removed from a working program, the program should still be legal, and sh=
ould
> still have the same semantics.
>
> In Ada 83 the unrecognized pragmas was syntactically check and skipped
> with an optional =A0simple warning that the compiler will skip that pragm=
a. =A0
> But in Ada 94 .. 2012 it is a question to what the Implementation will do=
.
> It kinds of kills the Ada concept of "predictable" and that's a shame for=
 all
> who controls the design of Ada.

They did add "pragma Restrictions(No_Implementation_Pragmas)".  So
those users who want that predictability back can have it.

                             -- Adam