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,LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,c1983ae2deb642ab X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-25 01:00:52 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!peernews!peer.cwci.net!newspeer1-gui.server.ntli.net!ntli.net!news6-win.server.ntlworld.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "chris.danx" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Ada -vs- GNAT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Message-ID: Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:00:35 +0100 NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.5.140.234 X-Complaints-To: abuse@ntlworld.com X-Trace: news6-win.server.ntlworld.com 1022313652 80.5.140.234 (Sat, 25 May 2002 09:00:52 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 09:00:52 BST Organization: ntl Cablemodem News Service Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24730 Date: 2002-05-25T09:00:35+01:00 List-Id: "Steve Doiel" wrote in message news:sXCH8.103053$Po6.225647@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net... > Recently I did some work with XML/Ada and found a few pieces code dependent > on the GNAT specific attributes 'img and 'unrestricted_access. I was able > to make the code work with ObjectAda (and any other Ada compiler) by making > a few small changes to the sources. Will you be putting it up anywhere? It might be nice to have compiler independant versions of things like this. Several of the biggy useful tools like gwindows, gnatcom, and possibly gtkada (with emphasis on the possibly) use gnat dependant features, which deters their use in other compilers. It'd be interesting to see how much code is actually gnat dependant in those tools. > In a recent thread on the gcc mailing list, Robert Dewar describes how ACT > introduced the pragma "Unreferened" such that code that previously appeared > as: > > pragma Warnings (Off, entitiy) > > could be replaced by > > pragma Unreferenced (entity) > > because the latter is "neater, reads better, and is clearer why it is > there." To me it's just clutter, but what do I know? Chris