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: Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com>
Subject: Re: Elaboration order
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <314D2E1C.5C72@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143745084
references: <314701A1.469D@lfwc.lockheed.com> <Do8JDv.A2v@world.std.com>
 <31494143.3825@lfwc.lockheed.com> <4icbnc$cda@wdl1.wdl.loral.com>
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: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Mark A Biggar wrote:
> 
> In article <31494143.3825@lfwc.lockheed.com> Ken Garlington <garlingtonke@lfwc.lockheed.com> writes:
> >Robert A Duff wrote:
> >[the standard answer, except it didn't explain...]
> >Why doesn't the subprogram body have to be elaborated before the call?
> 
> It does.

Please cite the Ada 83 reference for this. I can't find it.

In fact, in general, for all respondents to this question, if you
say that pragma Elaborate is _not_ needed in a particular context,
please cite an 83 reference. I can't even find a reference that
says the body can be assured of the elaboration of its own spec!