CVS difference for ais/ai-00224.txt

--- ais/ai-00224.txt	1999/11/29 21:13:52	1.6
+++ ais/ai-00224.txt	1999/11/30 20:05:15	1.7
@@ -675,6 +675,14 @@
 
 *************************************************************
 
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:12 PM
+
+I definitely agree, we have seen this standard and useful application of
+Unsuppress used, and use it ourselves sometimes.
+
+*************************************************************
+
 From: Randy Brukardt
 Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 1:31 PM
 
@@ -719,3 +727,69 @@
 			Randy.
 
 *************************************************************
+
+From: Robert A Duff
+Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 4:03 PM
+
+> The problem is that configuration pragmas are not given in a clearly defined
+> order.
+
+Have you considered making it implementation defined in that case?
+
+- Bob
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:45 PM
+
+<<Have you considered making it implementation defined in that case?
+>>
+
+Sounds reaqsonable to me, it depends on which is processed last, which
+is indeed impl defined.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 6:48 PM
+
+Not seriously. That seems like a last resort: punt! Such a definition would
+not be useful to people who need portable code, and of course would be
+untestable.
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Robert Dewar
+Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 10:16 PM
+
+Don't dance on pin heads :-)
+
+Who cares if there are multiple conflicting pragmas in the configuration
+pragmas, this simply won't happen in practice. Don't undermiune the
+utility of USEFUL applications by worrying about things that are useless!
+
+*************************************************************
+
+From: Randy Brukardt
+Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 1999 11:10 AM
+
+I would agree, except that multiple conflicting pragmas are USEFUL: they provide
+an easy way to turn off all but one check:
+
+    pragma Suppress (All_Checks);
+    pragma Unsuppress (Storage_Check);
+
+(But of course the order is significant). This is what I use in release code
+where size is an issue: the only check that I find critical is Stack and Heap
+checking (because the results are so catastropic if they are omitted).
+
+I want to have a way to do this as a configuration pragma/option in any
+implementation that I'm using. Making it implementation-defined eliminates that
+possibility (unless all of the vendors support it in the same way, which is very
+unlikely).
+
+			Randy.
+
+*************************************************************
+