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,FREEMAIL_FROM,
	INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,28b389d4503cb555
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mats Weber <matsw@mail.com>
Subject: Re: generic package dilemma
Date: 1999/11/18
Message-ID: <3833F615.5AD7166C@mail.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 550099111
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <80u48b$ghr$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <3832e27f_1@news1.prserv.net>
 <3832E75D.5B1BA719@mail.com> <383319e8_4@news1.prserv.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sunrise.ch
X-Trace: news1.sunrise.ch 942929394 24992 195.141.231.162 (18 Nov 1999
 12:49:54 GMT)
Organization: sunrise communications ag
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Nov 1999 12:49:54 GMT
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-18T12:49:54+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matthew Heaney wrote:

> I didn't think Elaborate vs Elaborate_All made any difference for
> generics.  From Cohen's AAASL, p682:

It does: if the generic instantiates another generic, e.g.

generic package P1 is ...

generic package P2 is ...

with P1;
package body P2 is
   package P1I is new P1;
end P2;

The clause

with P2;
pragma Elaborate(P2);

does not guarantee that P1's body gets elaborated.