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: 103376,7cb7162c2b845e9b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Keith Thompson Subject: Re: Unsupported Annexes Date: 1999/11/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 553399660 Sender: kst@king.cts.com References: <1e1urrd.1fjz88r1pc4s2jN%dwalker07@snet.net.invalid> X-Trace: thoth.cts.com 943645236 21099 198.68.168.21 (26 Nov 1999 19:40:36 GMT) Organization: CTS Network Services Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@cts.com Date: 1999-11-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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 San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> "Oh my gosh! You are SO ahead of your time!" -- anon.