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 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,b1264e586250f470
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-07-10 08:46:00 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: mheaney@on2.com (Matthew Heaney)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Elaboration of nested generic package.
Date: 10 Jul 2003 08:45:59 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <1ec946d1.0307100745.26d7d1ac@posting.google.com>
References: <mailman.0.1057119854.328.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
 <5437fafb.0307071905.5d3bbc4e@posting.google.com>
 <1ec946d1.0307080946.7e61cda9@posting.google.com>
 <5437fafb.0307091710.5cb4b0eb@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.162.65.162
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1057851959 10473 127.0.0.1 (10 Jul 2003 15:45:59
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Jul 2003 15:45:59 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:40171
Date: 2003-07-10T15:45:59+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

dlwester@hotmail.com (Don Westermeyer) wrote in message news:<5437fafb.0307091710.5cb4b0eb@posting.google.com>...
> > 
> You should not need an Elaborate_All pragma if the specification
> contains pragma Elaborate_Body since the body is elaborated
> immediately after the specification.

But we're talking about a generic unit.  I think that whenever you
instantiate a generic at library level, you need to use the
Elaborate_All pragma.

The categorization pragma inside the generic doesn't matter, because
that only applies to the instantiation (I think...), which doesn't
exist yet.


> It seems to me that the Ada language should have assumed an
> 'Elaborate_All' for every dependancy unless a pragma was used to
> specifically ignore it.  It would seem the compilers should also know
> when it can ignore elaboration checking without the user specifying
> Pure or Preelaborate.

No.  This would unnecessarily constrain the size of the set of all
possible elaboration orders.

 
> Usually I do use pragma Elaborate_All for every dependancy anyway
> since one does not have control over every software module developed. 
> Using it is always safer and causes no penalties that I know of
> (assuming the design stays clear of mutual dependancies).

This is a very bad idea.