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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,5dba30d6260ef552 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "Jean-Pierre Rosen" Subject: Re: Elaboration Order Date: 1999/11/15 Message-ID: <80p0au$6n1$1@wanadoo.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 548810941 References: X-Priority: 3 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr X-Trace: wanadoo.fr 942671006 6881 164.138.108.222 (15 Nov 1999 13:03:26 GMT) Organization: Adalog X-MSMail-Priority: Normal NNTP-Posting-Date: 15 Nov 1999 13:03:26 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-15T13:03:26+00:00 List-Id: Wolf-Dieter Heker a �crit dans le message : FL8IuH.677@sd.aonix.com... > And isn't it true that if > a package body cannnot be elaborated immediately after the spec we have > generally a doubtful design? (This is not to say there might be no reasons > for such a structure, just that it would be more the exception rathern than > the rule.) > There is (at least) one important case where this is not true: if the body of a parent package wants to "with" its children (a common situation with subsystems), then the specifications of the child units must be elaborated between the parent's spec and the parent's body. It is by the way quite annoying not to have an ELABORATE_FAMILY pragma... -- --------------------------------------------------------- J-P. Rosen (Rosen.Adalog@wanadoo.fr) Visit Adalog's web site at http://pro.wanadoo.fr/adalog