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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5894fe67040038b
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-11-27 16:44:10 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Attributes 'Version and 'Body_Version
Date: 27 Nov 2001 18:44:01 -0600
Organization: LJK Software
Message-ID: <YsaTZ19cOfHh@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <9s9iti$g$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <yecbsiekzkl.fsf@king.cts.com>
 <5ee5b646.0111081953.31e2633c@posting.google.com>
 <yec3d3nij4r.fsf@king.cts.com>
 <5ee5b646.0111121351.27897bc4@posting.google.com>
 <yecsnbjdrh0.fsf@king.cts.com> <9trpj1$4e6v2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <5ee5b646.0111251830.61aaa6be@posting.google.com>
 <9tsd63$4jjng$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <5ee5b646.0111260742.2a0d9357@posting.google.com>
 <9tu7nj$4v9lc$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <5ee5b646.0111261956.3df9b8e3@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1006908245 2137 192.135.80.34 (28 Nov 2001
 00:44:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 00:44:05 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:17072
Date: 2001-11-27T18:44:01-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <5ee5b646.0111261956.3df9b8e3@posting.google.com>, dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) writes:

> Section 2.8 of the RM is perfectly clear. The only
> implementation permission is to add implementation
> dependent pragmas, and the name is required to be
> different from any other pragma. This is really not
> a hard rule to find!

But when followed it does not do a whole lot to prevent current
implementation-defined pragmas from conflicting with the names
of future language-define pragmas.  Was the thought that the
set of Ada compiler vendors will always be so small that such
issues can be worked out informally ?

> 14   An implementation may provide implementation-defined pragmas; the
> name of an implementation-defined pragma shall differ from those of
> the language-defined pragmas.