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: 103376,28b389d4503cb555
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>
Subject: Re: generic package dilemma
Date: 1999/11/18
Message-ID: <383442e1_1@news1.prserv.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 550209650
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>
 <3833F615.5AD7166C@mail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prserv.net
X-Trace: 18 Nov 1999 18:18:09 GMT, 32.101.8.170
Organization: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & News Services
Mime-version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3833F615.5AD7166C@mail.com> , Mats Weber <matsw@mail.com>  
wrote:

> 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;


But isn't this wrong?  Shouldn't P2 elaborate P1?

with P1;
pragma Elaborate (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.

Is this still true if P2 does the proper thing, and elaborates P1?


--
Help keep evolution in the science classroom and religion out: become a
member of the National Center for Science Education.

<http://www.natcenscied.org/>