Re: Interrupt_Handler and "directly specified"

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"G.B." <bauhaus@futureapps.invalid> wrote in message 
news:n2nou4$jap$1@dont-email.me...
> For a protected handler, I had specified an aspect,
>
>    procedure On_1
>    with Interrupt_Handler => True;
>
> and got a strange compiler diagnostic, listed below.
>
> Is the above syntax correct?

Yes.

> I could drop " => True" and the compiler seemed happy. OTOH,
> the RM states, in C.3.1 6.2/3, that "if not directly specified,
> the aspect is False".
>
> I don't know what "directly specified" in RM C.3.1 means,
> exactly. Does it mean just specified as opposed to no
> such aspect specified (in source, near it)? So drop "=> ..."
> for truth?

"directly specified" means explicitly given on this entity (as opposed to 
inheriting a value from some ancestor, which is considered "specified").

If you leave the value off of any aspect specification, the value is True. 
(see 13.1.1(15/3)). So in
    with Pack, Atomic, Pure, Interrupt_Handler, Import;
all of these aspects have the value True. (And you'll get some errors.)

If
    procedure On_1 with Interrupt_Handler;
works and
    procedure On_1 with Interrupt_Handler => True;
does not, you've got a compiler bug, because these mean exactly the same 
thing.

                               Randy.