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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,183821e6c098051b,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Michael Subject: pragma Elaborate (Comp. Unit) question. Date: 1999/05/21 Message-ID: <37458C65.3393@pipeline.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 480587389 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e699492.he.boeing.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: The Boeing Company Mime-Version: 1.0 Reply-To: work@alphasoft-inc.com Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-05-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Hi All, 2 questions: Should one ever *need* get an error message from a compiler that a compilation unit needs to have a "pragma Elaborate" clause for another unit? That is, if the compiler knows what the elaboration order needs to be why can't it make the relavant deterministic change and proceed with a warning? Is it because elaboratation is by definition non-deterministic and if so why is it that way? FYI, I am using Vads Ada83. -- Michael Take out the "no_" and the "_spam" to reply