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: 103376,2485cb1936a0a4ec
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Robert I. Eachus" <eachus@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Package with initialization only
Date: 1999/07/22
Message-ID: <37975E15.931CF7E8@mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 504093555
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <37961DD6.E56BD3E9@maths.unine.ch>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.mitre.org
X-Trace: top.mitre.org 932666720 27283 129.83.41.77 (22 Jul 1999 18:05:20 GMT)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jul 1999 18:05:20 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-22T18:05:20+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Gautier wrote:
 
> A small "aesthetic" problem: I have a package with initialization only;
> thus I must add a dummy procedure to resolve the with/without body
> ambiguity Ada95 doesn't accept. There is surely a more elegant formulation,
> surely with OO, since the initialization procedure affects the public
> variable of the package. Its present state:

  This was considered when the change in the rule for package bodies was
made,  the solution was to add a legality rule--RM 10.2.1(25):  "If a
pragma Elaborate_Body applies to a declaration, then the declaration
requies a completion (a body)."
 
-- 

                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...