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: 143778617 references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "I wouldn't bother with extra pragmas and whatnot -- just more marginally useful documentation for the poor user to read. I wouldn't bother with "private", either, since technically these are not private children of System -- if they were, you couldn't refer to them from children of Ada." Actually we can't refer to them from children of Ada, that's becaues according the RM you couldn't compile children of Ada if they were written in Ada, since we are allowed to prohibit this, and we do! Luckily, all the runtime is written in Ada++, which is just like Ada except you have to oeby the GNAT style rules, you are allowed to compile children of Ada, and now, if we followed that route, you are allowed to with private children of System. Well it will be interesting to see what people think. Clearly the GNAT philosophy so far agrees with Bob, but we have a couple of votes for closing the door :-)