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: 103376,3b05f12bd7a2a871
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Lexical Conundrum
Date: 1998/03/05
Message-ID: <EACHUS.98Mar5182956@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 331236890
References: <01bd3d80$101287c0$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
 <EotBMK.MnK@world.std.com> <34F1BC2B.529629AF@lmco.com>
 <34F2BC0A.694AD65F@elca-matrix.ch> <dewar.888331888@merv>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-03-05T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <dewar.888331888@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

   Mats said

   <<True, but you have to treat all as a special case.
   >>


   Here once again is the correct check...

   Hmmm.  How does GNAT treat the attributes 'ACCESS, 'DELTA, and 'RANGE?
(Attributes whose identifiers match reserved words.)  If you fold the
reserved word into the tic to create an attribute name, no problem.
And as long as GNAT never provides implementation defined attributes
of values or ranges, again no problem. Both Ada 83 and Ada 95 avoid
these potentialy nasty cases, but there were some present in earlier
versions of Ada.  (In particular, the 'RANGE attribute could be a
subtype mark.)

   The right solution is probably to avoid defining attributes of
values.  Just as the cure for the problem of single character attribute
names (again, in Ada 80) was to refrain from defining any.
--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...