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: 103376,695540ed5945ed90
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: GnatLib vs. pragma Interface
Date: 1997/08/21
Message-ID: <dewar.872211174@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 267772448
References: <swhalenEF8Bys.M45@netcom.com> <dewar.872126541@merv>
 <swhalenEF9xyr.A5I@netcom.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Steve said

<<Thanks for the clarification. I kind of thought the use of pragma
Interface in GNAT was an anachronism.  I hardly think of it as
much of a bug (more a potential future buglette!).  But I'll send
it off to the official bug list so it can be cleaned up some day.>>


It you are referring to the possibility that we might remove pragma
Interface one day, that is not a possibility -- pragma Interface is
there for compatibility with Ada 83, and this requirement (for
Ada 83 compatibility) will be around for a long long time!

GNAT implements *all* the Ada 83 pragmas and attributes, and is committed
to continuing to include this capability.