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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.59.205 with SMTP id m13mr3965631qah.7.1371656770562; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.120.233 with SMTP id lf9mr7019obb.4.1371656770523; Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.ams3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border3.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.11.MISMATCH!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!j2no833706qak.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni3510qax.0!nntp.google.com!j2no833703qak.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 08:46:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <7f33982d-3bcf-452e-a3b3-3a0a28505ff1@x20g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <87r4g0g9c0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <87ip1bg4z2.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <53d0b070-a03b-43d0-a560-68dd3a8bebf5@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Elaboration order handling (Was: Bug in 'gnatmake') From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 15:46:10 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2474 X-Original-Bytes: 2812 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181950 Date: 2013-06-19T08:46:10-07:00 List-Id: On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 5:22:30 AM UTC-7, Robert A Duff wrote: > Lexicographic order would work. Or backwards of that. Or apply > "rot-13" to the bytes and then do lexicographic order. ;-) I guess it could work, but I gotta tell you--that seems really weird. I've= never heard of another language where the semantics could depend on the le= xicographical order of the identifiers. > Or you could base it on the order in which 'with' clauses=20 > happen to appear. No, I don't think that would work. Say there are two packages, Pack1 and P= ack2, that get included in the program, and there is no rule (in the curren= t language) that specifies which one gets elaborated first. Adding a rule = based on the "with" clause order would work if Pack1 and Pack2 are both wit= h'ed by the same package, Pack3, and are not with'ed anywhere else. But ot= her than that one narrow case, I don't see how you could write a rule to ba= se elaboration order on "with" clause order. -- Adam