Re: Proposal: pragma Assumption

[anon@anon.org (anon)]

Check the comments in GNAT's package "Ada.Asynchronous_Task_Control" 
which includes the "pragma Unimplemented_Unit;" statement.

And as for compiler allowing "--allow-unimplemented-units" this is 
against the Ada RM. It might be possible to compile Ada without the 
body for all routines But you must provide either a link (pragma Import) 
or the body to all routines before binding and linking.

In <13aa4422-c478-478e-8e33-882508d9d1f8@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Santiago_Urue=F1a?= <suruena@gmail.com> writes:
>> So the proposal would be adding to the next Ada revision two new
>> pragmas:
>>
>>   pragma Assumption ([Check =3D>] boolean_expression[,
>>                      [Message =3D>] string_expression]);
>>   pragma Assumption_Policy (policy_identifier);   -- Error, Check
>>
>I've been thinking more about it, and probably the compilers should be
>encouraged to choose a long switch name to reduce the chance of
>forgetting to remove that it in the final binary. For example, instead
>of (say) "-gnatap", choose something like "--allow-unimplemented-
>units".
>
>And maybe the pragma Assumption_Policy is a bad idea for the same
>reasons: this pragma has preference over the compiler switches (at
>least for gnat in the case of pragma Assert_Policy), so it is very
>easy to forget to change the policy from "Check" to "Error"...
>
>--
>Santiago Urue=F1a-Pascual
>Technical University of Madrid (UPM)