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: 103376,99ab4bb580fc34cd
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Q: access to subprogram
Date: 1996/07/11
Message-ID: <dewar.837058790@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 168254834
references: <4rb9dp$qe6@news1.delphi.com> <Dtxu2p.97F@world.std.com>
 	<JSA.96Jul2221357@organon.com> <Dtyt4K.Jvx@world.std.com>
 	<4rr5tu$sap@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> <JSA.96Jul9164604@organon.com>
 	<dewar.836963120@schonberg> <JSA.96Jul10212505@organon.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jon said

"The reasons for leaving out recursive types across packages definitely
make sense, but are just not convincing (pretty much everyone agrees
now on this).  The ones for leaving out assertions that I've seen here
(certain people getting wigged out over possible optimization effects)
basically make no sense."

OK, so you know from that thread the three separate and quite distinct
possible semantics for an assert pragma. Which of these three is
"obviously what is wanted" according to you? :-)

Just for interest, what areas of the language would you have left out
(to leave room for your favorite features!) ?