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: 103376,7903a7ed8de6a521,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: mab@dst17.wdl.loral.com (Mark A Biggar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/22
Message-ID: <4gipjq$l3q@wdl1.wdl.loral.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 140615172
references: <4gi8o8$an2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
organization: Loral Western Development Labs
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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