CVS difference for ais/ai-00224.txt

--- ais/ai-00224.txt	1999/11/20 03:26:59	1.1
+++ ais/ai-00224.txt	1999/11/23 02:56:18	1.2
@@ -215,3 +215,71 @@
 
 *************************************************************
 
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 1:58 PM
+
+This is as far as I can tell exactly the same semantics as pragma
+Unsuppress in GNAT, and indeed these are the obvious semantics,
+since they derive directly from Supress.
+
+I see no point whatsoever in changing the name
+
+a) People are used to pragma Unsuppress and are using it now
+
+b) the name is FAR more obvious, Require?? Require what? Sure you could
+make the same question for Suppress, but we know suppress already.
+
+I would strongly oppose changing the name, and most certainly we will not
+implement it under the name Require in GNAT, because this would be unnecessary
+duplication.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, November 22, 1999 7:16 PM
+
+> This is as far as I can tell exactly the same semantics as pragma
+> Unsuppress in GNAT, and indeed these are the obvious semantics,
+> since they derive directly from Suppress.
+
+No, not exactly. The GNAT documentation that Ed handed out says "If there is no
+corresponding pragma Suppress in effect, it [Unsuppress] has no effect." The
+natural (to me) wording changes ended up with slightly different semantics, that
+is that Suppress has no effect in a region where Require is given. The
+difference is that Require can be given first -- it essentially is which is
+given precedence.
+
+> I see no point whatsoever in changing the name
+>
+> a) People are used to pragma Unsuppress and are using it now
+>
+> b) the name is FAR more obvious, Require?? Require what? Sure you could
+> make the same question for Suppress, but we know suppress already.
+
+Require the argument, just like Suppress is "Suppress the argument". I.e.
+
+     pragma Require (Overflow_Check);
+
+> I would strongly oppose changing the name.
+
+OK, fair enough. In that case, I think that the answers to the two questions I
+posed (does the pragma have an effect if no Suppress has been given, and should
+"resuppression" be supported) should be different. And the pragma then has no
+use as a preventative measure (both because it makes no sense to "Unsuppress" if
+nothing is "Suppress"ed, and because a normally correct implementation of Ada 95
+will complain about such pragmas).
+
+> and most certainly we will not implement it under the name Require in GNAT,
+> because this would be unnecessary duplication.
+
+Well, this sounds very much like a Jean Ishbiah temper-tantrum: "If I can't have
+my way, I'm going to take my ball and go home." I don't think this attitude is a
+way to get useful work done (or to sway technical differences of opinion,
+either). In any case, GNAT /= Ada. We want new features in Ada to be as useful
+as possible to all users of Ada, not just to the customers of one particular
+compiler.
+
+			Randy.
+
+*************************************************************
+