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: Ted Dennison <dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
Subject: Re: Elaboration order
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <314E00E1.19B2@escmail.orl.mmc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143798181
references: <314701A1.469D@lfwc.lockheed.com>
content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
organization: Lockheed Martin Marine Systems
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
x-mailer: Mozilla 2.0 (X11; I; HP-UX A.09.01 9000/750)
Date: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ken Garlington wrote:
> 
> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> >
> >    BUT, and this is what makes it so painless, either your program
> > runs or you get PROGRAM_ERROR right off the bat, so leaving out a
> > (potentially) required pragma Elaborate is pretty harmless.
> 
> I have to tell you, a development philosophy that says, "Oh, well,
> if I make a mistake, I'll see an exception" rubs me the wrong way.
> Maybe I just don't have that Ada mindset...

Then I guess after 7 years of using Ada, I don't have the Ada mindset
either.

Again, the general rule is: don't call routines from other packages in
package specs, package body declarations, or package body code. If for
some reason you can't follow this rule, use a pragma elaborate. 

While dependance on order of elaboration (w/o pragma elaborate) is not
technicly erronious, I ding it every time I see it in a walkthrough.

-- 
T.E.D.          
                |  Work - mailto:dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com  |
                |  Home - mailto:dennison@iag.net              |
                |  URL  - http://www.iag.net/~dennison         |