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,XPRIO autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,cc7bad83fb245cb3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Robert C. Leif, Ph.D." Subject: RE: Binding a type to a union. Date: 1999/11/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 553529102 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Complaints-To: usenet@enst.fr Importance: Normal X-Trace: menuisier.enst.fr 943675994 16534 137.194.161.2 (27 Nov 1999 04:13:13 GMT) Organization: ENST, France X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 Nov 1999 04:13:13 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-27T04:13:13+00:00 List-Id: >From : Bob Leif To: Robert Dewar et al. I am gratified that "the extended Ada language technology agreed on by the ARA technical committee, and has since been discussed by the ARG as a possible semi-standard extension." Finally, Ada has some flexibility and adaptability! I hope that 1) the ARA and ARG can define a process for extending Ada and a better term than "a possible semi-standard extension." 2) That these semi-standard extensions keep being created as required with or without a formal process. and 3) An informal process, at least initially, be set up where we the users can make suggestions for these "semi-standard extensions." I like the term provisional extensions. You can even follow the present commercial software terminology. We could have alpha and beta levels. When an extension is accepted by ISO, it becomes gold. -----Original Message----- From: Robert Dewar [mailto:robert_dewar@my-deja.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 9:21 PM To: comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org Subject: Re: Binding a type to a union. In article <81gtd5$rfb$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Ted Dennison wrote: > Perhaps that's because compilers ignore pragmas they don't recognize. > Just for fun, try putting a "pragma Foo_Bar;" in one of your source > files and compile it with Gnat. The worst you'll see is a: > warning: unrecognized pragma "Foo_Bar -- > T.E.D. Well I assume this is a joke, but I did not see a smiley. Of COURSE it is the case that if you use Unchecked_Union to interface to a C union, and it was not implemented, then your program wouldn't work. And if indeed the above was intended to be serious, then please note that a small amount of research would have shown you that most Ada 95 compilers implement this pragma. It was one of the first bits of extended Ada language technology agreed on by the ARA technical committee, and has since been discussed by the ARG as a possible semi-standard extension. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.