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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,ea5071f634c2ea8b
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Received: by 10.68.36.6 with SMTP id m6mr3067615pbj.4.1321871312890;
        Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:28:32 -0800 (PST)
Path: 
 lh20ni1135pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: AdaMagica <christ-usch.grein@t-online.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Generic-Package Elaboration Question / Possible GNAT Bug.
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:25:16 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <4a210c45-9bec-4da5-8e0a-856765f29adc@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
References: 
 <7bf9bc32-850a-40c6-9ae2-5254fe220533@f29g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
 <wcc4nxzu5gf.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <4295dc09-43de-4557-a095-fc108359f27f@y42g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
 <fe29npj98k5s$.1vzwcva8q22hk.dlg@40tude.net>
 <a5d7119f-7bb7-41e4-8d76-ef08f2d958d9@g7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>
 <3snehoqgs8ia$.1nobjem6g6hx6$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.156.44.178
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1321871312 24983 127.0.0.1 (21 Nov 2011 10:28:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:28:32 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com; posting-host=80.156.44.178;
 posting-account=rmHyLAoAAADSQmMWJF0a_815Fdd96RDf
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-Google-Web-Client: true
X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESRCNK
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:8.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0,gzip(gfe)
Xref: news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:14475
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Date: 2011-11-21T02:25:16-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 21 Nov., 09:43, "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mail...@dmitry-kazakov.de>
wrote:
> If the specification becomes illegal so does the body.

So what?
If the instance of the spec is legal, so is the body - that's all that
was said, in contrast to C++: The compiler (and the programmer) does
not need to look into the body to decide whether the instantiation is
legal.