From: mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/22
Date: 1996-02-22T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4gipjq$l3q@wdl1.wdl.loral.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4gi8o8$an2@newsbf02.news.aol.com
In article <4gi8o8$an2@newsbf02.news.aol.com> johnherro@aol.com (John Herro) writes:
> In Ada 95, a package spec. that doesn't *need* an corresponding body
>can't *have* one. Here's a simplified program segment that I wrote in Ada
>83:
The proper solution to this problem is to include a
pragma ELABORATE_BODY;
in the package spec, this forces the existence of a body for a package
where one would otherwise bre illegal.
--
Mark Biggar
mab@wdl.loral.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-02-22 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-02-22 0:00 Ada 95 Compatibility John Herro
1996-02-22 0:00 ` Mark A Biggar [this message]
1996-02-23 0:00 ` PHILIP W. BRASHEAR
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-02-24 0:00 ` John Herro
1996-02-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Peter Amey
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox