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,bbbeae4ed07e9626 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) Subject: Re: Address to function pointer conversion Date: 1997/06/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 252215029 References: <5nrq5h$13cm@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <33A1831C.269F@sprintmail.com> <33A74403.4B7C@sprintmail.com> Organization: Estormza Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: ><pragma was available for access-to-subprogram types. (I was making an >informed guess.) > >> > >It is obviously not *required* to be available, but it likely will work fine. >If it is rejected, this is a red flag that the interface will not work. I'm confused by this answer. Do you mean If it is accepted, then it is guaranteed to work. or do you mean If it is accepted, it is not guaranteed to work, but is still likely to work anyway. When you say "but it will likely will work fine," are you describing the case when the pragma is accepted? Or that "it will likely work fine" even if the pragma isn't accepted? I'm confused because if the pragma is accepted, "likely is work fine" isn't how I would like to see it described. I'd rather you say, "If the pragma is accepted, then it is guaranteed to work." Having something compile without error, and then describing that program as "likely to work" doesn't give one a high degree of confidence, n'est-ce pas? -------------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Heaney Software Development Consultant (818) 985-1271