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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5dba30d6260ef552
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>
Subject: Re: Elaboration Order
Date: 1999/11/16
Message-ID: <80s1c8$6d6$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 549302379
References: <FL8IuH.677@sd.aonix.com> <80pcdf$7u5$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <FLABtD.MEw@sd.aonix.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 205.232.38.14
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Tue Nov 16 16:39:37 1999 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDrobert_dewar
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.04 [en] (OS/2; I)
Date: 1999-11-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <FLABtD.MEw@sd.aonix.com>,
  "Wolf-Dieter Heker" <heker@aonix.de> wrote:
> So you say, most packages should have one of these pragmas. I
agree. But the
> code I have seen so far does NOT contain them. I think that's
real life. Do
> you agree?


Well I cannot possibly disagree with a statement about code
that *you* have seen so far.

This means that you have not seen the GNAT runtime sources
I guess :-)

In practice we see quite a few customers adopting coding
guidelines for new Ada 95 code that include the requirements
for adding these pragmas where possible, and if you are using
Annex E, you quickly find the importance of doing so!


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.