* Unsupported Annexes
@ 1999-11-26 0:00 Daryle Walker
1999-11-26 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1999-11-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daryle Walker @ 1999-11-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
Hmm, maybe this should be in comp.compilers....
This question is for the Ada compiler creators. When a compiler doesn't
support a particular annex, do the structures in the annex still have to
be parsed?
If the answer is yes, then someone moving to a compiler without the
annex could get a "construction from an unsupported annex" error. This
would seem to be the best answer.
If the answer is no, then someone moving to a compiler without the annex
would get a generic "syntax error" when using code that utilizes that
annex. That would seem very rude.
At least, if an annex is unsupported, are the keywords from that annex
still reserved?
--
Daryle Walker
Video Game, Mac, and Internet Junkie
dwalker07 AT snet DOT net
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Unsupported Annexes
1999-11-26 0:00 Unsupported Annexes Daryle Walker
@ 1999-11-26 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1999-11-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Keith Thompson @ 1999-11-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
dwalker07@snet.net.invalid (Daryle Walker) writes:
> Hmm, maybe this should be in comp.compilers....
>
> This question is for the Ada compiler creators. When a compiler doesn't
> support a particular annex, do the structures in the annex still have to
> be parsed?
None of the optional annexes define new syntax or keywords. You'll
get diagnostics for unimplemented pragmas, attributes, and packages,
but no syntax errors.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"Oh my gosh! You are SO ahead of your time!" -- anon.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Unsupported Annexes
1999-11-26 0:00 Unsupported Annexes Daryle Walker
1999-11-26 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
@ 1999-11-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1 sibling, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Robert Dewar @ 1999-11-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
In article <1e1urrd.1fjz88r1pc4s2jN%dwalker07@snet.net.invalid>,
dwalker07@snet.net.invalid (Daryle Walker) wrote:
> At least, if an annex is unsupported, are the keywords from
> that annex still reserved?
As is clear in the RM, the annexes NEVER introduce new syntax
(and hence do not introduce new keywords), precisely to avoid
the kind of scenario you suggest.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1999-11-27 0:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
1999-11-26 0:00 Unsupported Annexes Daryle Walker
1999-11-26 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1999-11-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox