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: Keith Thompson <kst@cts.com>
Subject: Re: Disallowing Pre-Defined Operations
Date: 2000/03/13
Message-ID: <yec4saah40n.fsf@king.cts.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 597070749
Sender: kst@king.cts.com
References: <8a9eeg$qtv$1@newpoisson.nosc.mil> <8ababr$c3u$1@wanadoo.fr>
 <38CA05AF.7E77790D@online.no> <8ajeji$896$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 952988264 31970 205.163.0.22 (13 Mar 2000 22:57:44 GMT)
Organization: CTS Network Services
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com
Date: 2000-03-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> writes:
[...]
> The abstract declaration is quite direct and consistent,
> entirely intuitive, since it is consistent with the way
> abstract works, and less typing than your horrible pragma.

I'm not convinced of that.  RM95-3.9.3(1) says:

    An abstract subprogram is a subprogram that has no body, but is
    intended to be overridden at some point when inherited.

What we're talking about here is a subprogram that is *not* intended
to be overridden.  The usage is guaranteed to work, but judging from
the wording in the RM I don't believe it's consistent with the
original intent.  (I'm not saying I have a better idea.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center           <*>  <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Welcome to the last year of the 20th century.