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,df854b5838c3e14 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't. Date: 1996/03/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 143715419 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4iq71v$cvr@news4.digex.net> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <4xohpp8nzj.fsf@leibniz.enst-bretagne.fr> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Laurent Guerby said: " What about a unit pragma like GNAT_Specific ? Without the magic GNAT switch, the user cannot "with" this packages (or, may be, make use of GNAT specific stuff). An agressive "portability" switch (with plenty of warnings for known compiler-dependant features) can be of great interest. Of course I don't have money for it ;-) ;-)." That's a possibility. I had certainly assumed that the internal GNAT mode switch (-gnatg) would break the privateness of System units if we made them private, because of course the bodies of many of the Ada children do with these System units. As for portability, note that we already implement pragma Restrictions (No_GNAT_Attributes) pragma Restrictions (No_GNAT_Pragmas) that's not everything you wanted, but you can have it without paying a dime :-)