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,c7ea1cb7a2beb2ee
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: Disallowing Pre-Defined Operations
Date: 2000/03/13
Message-ID: <wcc7lf7auk5.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 596830217
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <8a9eeg$qtv$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil>
 <8ababr$c3u$1@wanadoo.fr><8afhed$f9v$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil>
 <wcc8zzop2ib.fsf@world.std.com> <8aia0k$csf6@ftp.kvaerner.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-03-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com> writes:

> I would think that pragmas would be an ideal way to explore such a
> functionality.

Why?  If you want to explore language extensions, why not properly
design and implement whatever feature it is you think you want, and try
it out?  I don't see any way in which making it a pragma would help.
In fact, it probably makes things slightly harder.

>... If they were useful, then it would be apropriate to extend the
> language.

How about, "if they were useful enough to outweigh the added
complexity..."?  No language feature comes for free.

- Bob