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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,16e3a8dd4f3ab3f3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)
Subject: Re: Elaboration order
Date: 1996/03/18
Message-ID: <4ik48m$cl6@watnews1.watson.ibm.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143087552
distribution: world
references: <314701A1.469D@lfwc.lockheed.com> <Do8JDv.A2v@world.std.com>
 <31494143.3825@lfwc.lockheed.com> <DoBI9D.KH6@world.std.com>
organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
reply-to: ncohen@watson.ibm.com
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <DoBI9D.KH6@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com
(Robert A Duff) writes: 

|> The designers of Ada 83 struggled with this issue.  In Ada 80 (or so),
|> the compiler was required to do an extraordinarily complex analysis at
|> link time, to determine the order, so there was no need for run-time
|> checks on calls.  This was changed in order to simplify implementation.

"Extraordinarily complex" is an understatement.  As I recall, the
original wording required implementors to solve the halting problem.

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com