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: 143778558 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4iq71v$cvr@news4.digex.net> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <4xohpp8nzj.fsf@leibniz.enst-bretagne.fr> <4iuerk$113p@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Norm said (with smiley) "Presumably No_GNAT_Pragmas prohibits GNAT-defined pragma names, but not GNAT-defined pragma ARGUMENTS (such as No_GNAT_Pragmas). Or would a more accurate restriction name have been No_More_GNAT_Pragmas_After_This_One? " Actually that's wrong. pragma Restrictions is not an implentation defined pragma, it is a predefined pragma. What is going on here is nothing to do with impleentation defined pragmas, but instead see RM 13.12 (7) 7 The set of restrictions is implementation defined. No_GNAT_Pragmas is an implementation defined Restriction. Now it is true that this Restriction could be rejected by another implementation, so I propose (a) to rename this No_Implementation_Dependent_Pragas (b) to encourage all vendors to at least recognize, and hopefully implement, this restriction. Reactions?