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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,91d0d8cd28bbb477
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Lucretia <lucretia9@lycos.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Implementing an Ada compiler and libraries.
Date: 11 May 2007 10:39:46 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <1178905186.012787.167150@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
References: <1178721451.073700.10730@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
   <6819scxft9y4$.1vlh83ppnnyrh$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1178731280.075981.23040@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
   <8cu67r7wcdn7$.18rtn6g7506w2$.dlg@40tude.net>
   <1178818792.829214.95870@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>
   <1178820387.916393.238070@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
   <4644179d$1_5@news.bluewin.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.56.75.195
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1178905186 21950 127.0.0.1 (11 May 2007 17:39:46
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 17:39:46 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <4644179d$1_5@news.bluewin.ch>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Opera/9.10 (X11; Linux i686; U; en),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.56.75.195;
   posting-account=G-J9fgwAAADgpzBiEyy5tO4f8MX5fbpw
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:15760
Date: 2007-05-11T10:39:46-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On May 11, 8:14 am, Gautier <gaut...@fakeaddress.nil> wrote:
> > What if the body of one or two require the subprogram three? Is this a
> > form of forward declaration? Would interleaving specs and body's cause
> > problems? Probably.
>
> Most Ada compilers allow multiple compilation units in the same file.
> They are just treated the same way as if they were each in its file.
> It would be surprising if this was not described somewhere in the Manual...

There isn't as far as I've found. It's implementation dependent.

> In your example, three is not visible by the body of one or two.
>
>    package one is procedure z; end;
>    package two is procedure z; end;
>    procedure three is begin null; end;
>    package body one is procedure z is begin null; end; end;
>    package body two is procedure z is begin three; end; end;
>
> ObjectAda says to that:
> multipack: Error: line 5 col 44 LRM:4.1(3), Direct name, three, is not
> visible, Ignoring future references

Yeah, my example wasn't complete, just an example ordering I slapped
together.

> conversely...
>
>    package one is procedure z; end;
>    package two is procedure z; end;
>    procedure three is begin null; end;
>    package body one is procedure z is begin null; end; end;
>    with three;
>    package body two is procedure z is begin three; end; end;
>
> compiles fine.

Now, I take it there would be a compiler error if three came after
two?

> And yes you can put others specs after bodies, just a spec of a package after
> its body seems not ok:
>
>    package body one is procedure z is begin null; end; end;
>    package one is procedure z; end;
>
> multipack: Error: line 1 col 15 LRM:7.2(4), corresponding package spec not
> found, continuing

Ok.

So, it seems that Aonix just enforces that the dependencies within a
file be sorted out by the programmer, and that the specs are always
before the bodies. What if you do:

package one is ... end one;
package two is ... end two;
package body one is ... end one;
package body two is ... end two;

I take it, this is allowed?

Thanks,
Luke.