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: 103376,758f1e01b86b6274
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Gautier <gautier.demontmollin@maths.unine.ch>
Subject: Re: Export instances of procedures
Date: 2000/04/25
Message-ID: <3905CCCB.C48B9113@maths.unine.ch>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 615527029
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <38FCBA00.992AA7A2@maths.unine.ch> <38FD0E08.6C96@li.net>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 25 Apr 2000 18:50:19 +0100, mac13-32.unine.ch
Organization: Maths - Uni =?iso-8859-1?Q?Neuch=E2tel?=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Vincent Marciante wrote:

> At this point, Read_8bit_AutoInt(...) requires a completion.
> A subprogram renaming declaration (RM 8.5.4) can act as a completion but
> an instantiation can't.

Sorry for insisting on this question, but _why_ cannot the instance
be considered as complete ? Well, the generic body could depend on an
uncompletely defined type, hence the instance too. But the instance
could also be clearly complete, couldn't it ? In my code, it is!
In that case what does the "renames" bring ? Is it purely formal
or does it reflect some indirections (indirect access to the procedure) ?

NB: I have seen in the Manual many topics about completion (3.10.1, 3.11.1,
7.6.1, 9.5.2) and the one that seems the most relevant here, 8.5.4(5) but
I didn't guess the motivations behind these rules...
Maybe some wise one knows them or can decipher the Runes ? ;-)
______________________________________________________
Gautier  --  http://members.xoom.com/gdemont/gsoft.htm