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: 103376,7903a7ed8de6a521
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ken Garlington <GarlingtonKE@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/26
Message-ID: <3131BCD1.832@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 141260049
references: <312DA0EB.4422@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <4gmdfs$mdd@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <dewar.825179042@schonberg>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (Macintosh; I; 68K)
Date: 1996-02-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> Yes, that's certainly fine in Ada 95. If you want to stay Ada 83
> compatible...
> 
[other example snipped]

I figured that the pragma Elaborate_Body would work with Ada 83 as well, in
that the pragma would be ignored and the body allowed. If you're saying that
the second example is safer in Ada 83, since you can't "forget" to compile
the body, then I understand.