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,baa6871d466e5af9,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: JP Thornley Subject: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body Date: 1997/04/18 Message-ID: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 235775905 X-Mail2News-User: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk X-Mail2News-Path: relay-7.mail.demon.net!relay-5.mail.demon.net!diphi.demon.co.uk Organization: None Reply-To: jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-18T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In the rationale to Section 8.4.3, Coupling Due to Pragmas, the second paragraph says:- "When there is a clear requirement for a recursive dependency, you should use pragma Elaborate_Body. This situation arises, for example, when you have a recursive dependency (i.e., package A's body depends on package B's specification and package B's body depends on package A's specification)." The most obvious interpretation of this is that the pragma should appear in both packages - which will generate an error, probably at link/bind time. So is there a meaningful message struggling to get out here? [Perhaps "a clear requirement" can be replaced by "no requirement", so that a successful build confirms that no circular package depencies have been introduced unwittingly.] [The suspicion of poor authoring/editing is reinforced by the rather strange wording where X is an example of X.] Phil Thornley -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ | JP Thornley EMail jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk | | phil.thornley@acm.org | ------------------------------------------------------------------------