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-Thread: 103376,b8b8a54001adc4d2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Possible Ada deficiency? Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:24:10 +0000 Message-ID: <2106909.XdsyxhICSC@jellix.jlfencey.com> References: <1104516913.718856.94090@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <16jm4u4b7j5bh.5r4falzh3k6a$.dlg@40tude.net> <9ls4dpw9xkri$.1t4b3d8zglukq.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: individual.net yie5nJVWmBQylwvWEbQ/JQBvvH5K0VcfdDk791rYlbHaZ5d5kV X-Phone: +41 62 961 13 52 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:7634 Date: 2005-01-11T07:24:10+00:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > On 10 Jan 2005 18:58:12 +0100, Pascal Obry wrote: > >> Duncan Sands writes: >> >>>> Another thing *I* would remove from the language is pragmas! At >>>> least I would not allow them anywhere except bodies. >>> >>> What about pragma Inline? > > I would leave all optimization issues to the compiler. Hmm. Then: What about pragma Volatile? pragma Atomic? Or all these interesting ones from Annexes D, E & H? Vinzent.