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: 1996/03/21
Message-ID: <31514FC4.ABB@lfwc.lockheed.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143612481
references: <314D2E1C.5C72@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <1996Mar19.023129.27619@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.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: 1996-03-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Chris McKnight wrote:
> 
> >> >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.
> >
>   Guess you didn't read my response.

Sorry, another ambiguous discussion here.

My question was: Does the language standard require (that is, directs the compiler
to always do it "correctly")  that the body be elaborated before the call?

Your answer was: The language standard does require (that is, will directs the
compiler to generate Program_Error if it didn't do it "correctly") that the body be
elaborated before the call.

My bad!