CVS difference for ais/ai-00309.txt
--- ais/ai-00309.txt 2004/04/27 03:37:52 1.2
+++ ais/ai-00309.txt 2004/12/09 19:55:29 1.3
@@ -1,15 +1,17 @@
-!standard 6.3.2 (06) 04-04-26 AI95-00309/01
+!standard 6.3.2 (06) 04-11-30 AI95-00309/02
!standard 6.3.2 (03)
!standard 10.1.5 (02)
!standard 10.1.5 (05)
!standard 10.1.5 (06)
!class binding interpretation 02-09-25
+!status Amendment 200Y 04-11-30
+!status ARG Approved 10-0-0 04-11-21
!status work item 04-04-26
!status received 02-09-17
-!subject Pragma Inline issues
+!subject Pragma Inline compatibility
@@ -49,14 +51,11 @@
Add an implementation permission after 6.3.2(6):
-An implementation may allow a pragma Inline at the place of a declaration other
-than the first, of a declarative_part, which has an argument which is a
-direct_name that denotes subprogram_body of the same declarative_part.
+An implementation may allow a pragma Inline that has an argument which is a
+direct_name denoting a subprogram_body of the same declarative_part.
-AARM Note: We only need to allow this in declarate_parts, because a body
+AARM Note: We only need to allow this in declarative_parts, because a body
is only allowed in another body, and these all have declarative_parts.
-[Do we need to say something to allow other items (such as a
-subprogram_declaration) in this pragma.
@@ -65,8 +64,18 @@
We add an implementation permission for pragma Inline only, because changing
the definition of program unit pragmas would affect many other pragmas.
-Moreover, this use can be considered obsolscent, as Ada 95 allows the pragma
+Moreover, this use can be considered obsolescent, as Ada 95 allows the pragma
to be given within the body to have the same effect.
+For each call, an implementation is free to follow or to ignore the
+recommendation expressed by the @fa<pragma>.
+An implementation may allow a @fa<pragma> Inline that has an argument which
+is a @fa<direct_name> denoting a @fa<subprogram_body> of the same
Questions? Ask the ACAA Technical Agent