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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,16e3a8dd4f3ab3f3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Jean-Pierre Rosen <rosen@EMAIL.ENST.FR>
Subject: Re: Elaboration order
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <199603181153.MAA06750@email.enst.fr>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143785122
sender: Ada programming language <INFO-ADA@VM1.NoDak.EDU>
x-sender: rosen@email.enst.fr
comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Date: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

I'm surprised nobody mentionned this (or did I miss it?). If you know the
body of the package does not have any cross-calls at elaboration (which is
the common case), put a pragma Elaborate_Body in the spec.
The body will then be elaborated immediately after the sepc, so no user of
the package will run into problems with elaboration order.
BTW: this is Ada 95 of course, but  putting the pragma in an Ada 83 program
will not harm...
+------------------------------------o-------------------------------------+
| P-mail:                            | E-mail: rosen@enst.fr               |
|   ADALOG - 27 avenue de Verdun     |    Tel: +33 1 46 45 51 12           |
|   92170 Vanves - FRANCE            |    Fax: +33 1 46 45 52 49           |
+------------------------------------o-------------------------------------+