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,de68e4ddf10693
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: Multiple pragma Imports
Date: 1999/01/07
Message-ID: <EACHUS.99Jan7115623@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 429851570
References: <762u9n$kfn$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> <m3r9t8whzw.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
Organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-01-07T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <m3r9t8whzw.fsf@mheaney.ni.net> Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> writes:

  > I've never liked the fact that one pragma applies to multiple
  > subprograms, for example:

  >   <declare a few "+" functions>
  >   <declare a few "-" functions>
  > private
  >   pragma Inline ("+");
  >   pragma Inline ("-");

  > I'd rather be able to specify each subprogram individually in the
  > pragma.

  If you need to do this, the way to do it is to rename the operations
you want inlined in the private part, then apply inline to the renamed
versions.  That this is possible is not obvious from the RM, that is
would be nice if it were more elegant is agreed.  (You often can order
the declarations so that the pragma is in the middle, and only applies
to those above it, but this doesn't work if you want the pragma in the
private part.)

--

					Robert I. Eachus

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