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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gegeweb.org!news.ecp.fr!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Aspect CPU
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 17:25:26 -0600
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <lb75d5$ahl$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <27ff7582-b2bd-4a51-80a9-6a65a8c3f38b@googlegroups.com>
 <fc12dc98-3702-4081-85a9-f97fa1c5778c@googlegroups.com>
 <74bb1a6c-4239-448b-aa0c-41684cc0fdf5@googlegroups.com>
 <lytxd5uiat.fsf@pushface.org>
 <9e8a283e-997a-4409-ab3e-fe14a0904066@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: static-69-95-181-76.mad.choiceone.net
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1389828326 10805 69.95.181.76 (15 Jan 2014 23:25:26 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:25:26 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:18191
Date: 2014-01-15T17:25:26-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Anh Vo" <anhvofrcaus@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:9e8a283e-997a-4409-ab3e-fe14a0904066@googlegroups.com...
On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 12:00:26 PM UTC-8, Simon Wright wrote:
...
>Thanks Simon. It is obviously I overlooked this section. After looking at 
>this section carefully,
>paragraph 6/3 invokes my curiosity. My question is why aspect_specification 
>is allowed in
>task body definition as paragraph 6/3 is repeated below for easy 
>discussion.

The Language Design Principles at the start of subclause 13.1.1 of the AARM 
goes into the reasons for the syntax of aspect specifications. We argued 
about this a lot, and it became pretty clear that there was no perfect 
solution.

The short answer is that virtually all kinds of (stand-alone) declarations 
allow aspect specifications, and that includes all kinds of bodies. 
13.1.1(17/3) notes that there many kinds of declarations that allow aspect 
specifications, but have no language-defined aspects that can be specified 
there. The primary reason for this is so that implementation-defined aspects 
(and possible further language-defined aspects) can be placed there if that 
makes sense. The AARM notes that an implementation will have to make up 
rules for such aspects, as the language doesn't provide any.

                              Randy.