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: 103376,8c040575fda600b7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Interface programming
Date: 1996/08/19
Message-ID: <dewar.840486393@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 175262022
references: <4v8pj1$7n2@hermes.acs.unt.edu> <4v988h$drs@romeo.logica.co.uk>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Paul said

"mantri@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ramesh S. Mantri) wrote:
I think your pragma needs a corresponding interface name pragma."

Nope, firstly interface_name is some kind of implementation dependent
Ada 83 stuff (it is not even part of Ada 83), and is unnecessary in
Ada 95 (though some compilers, such as GNAt support it anyway). But
in any case this is completely irrelevant to the problem which was
one of direct visibility, which is of course not affected by pragmas.