Re: generic package dilemma

["Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org>]

In article <wcc1z9nzzsz.fsf@world.std.com> , Robert A Duff 
<bobduff@world.std.com>  wrote:

> But elaboration of the *instance* can call something that might cause
> trouble.

But isn't the generic unit responsible for using the proper pragmas, if
it does something in the begin part of its body? (And even if it doesn't
have a begin part, it still needs to pragma Elaborate the with'd unit,
right?)

with GP;
pragma Elaborate;

package body GQ is
  package P is new GP;
begin
  P.Do_Something;
end GQ;

Are you saying that Elaborate is not sufficient here?  (That we need an
Elaborate_All?)

Is the statement in Norm's book correct, or incorrect?


> And, as somebody else pointed out, you can have nested
> instantiations.

But isn't the generic supposed to pragma elaborate the nested generic?



--
Creationists attempt to draw a line between evolutionary biology and the
rest of science by remarking that large-scale evolution cannot be
observed.  This tactic fails.  Large-scale evolution is no more
inaccessible to observation than nuclear reactions or the molecular
composition of water.

Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism
Philip Kitcher