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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1cf653444208df72
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-11 12:59:05 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!isdnet!newsgate.cistron.nl!bullseye.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!pogner.demon.co.uk!zap!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp
Date: 10 Oct 2001 06:47:09 +0100
Organization: Pushface
Message-ID: <x7vy9mk11ya.fsf@smaug.pushface.org>
References: <Xns912FE7C63AC8Dralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <slrn9rn660.uu.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <Xns912FEBF1DF3EBralphworkcoza@196.25.240.158>
 <tTRu7.25751$S_6.2879078@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu>
 <slrn9rondp.tn.randhol+abuse@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <9phnic$9g5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <uadz7nza7.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <5fkv7.134136$w7.19988807@news02.optonline.net> <u8zepgmea.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
 <9pmpk00a53@drn.newsguy.com> <9puvdc$225$1@nh.pace.co.uk>
 <9pv2f20jf4@drn.newsguy <3BC3240B.96703A8B@worldnet.att.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1002830333 nnrp-08:20816 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Oct 2001 05:47:09 GMT
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14326
Date: 2001-10-10T05:47:09+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

James Rogers <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> writes:

> Why not simply use pragma Suppress(All_Checks) ?

But doesn't that only suppress runtime checks? I thought the main
complaint was much earlier in the lifecycle.

  X : Integer := Integer ("hello world");