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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,59d5ec062146fb1f
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-31 07:29:00 PST
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!EU.net!uunet!noc.near.net!inmet!spock!stt
From: stt@spock.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft)
Subject: Re: Elaboration
Message-ID: <CyJMrt.LEJ@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
References: <941029004807_73672.2025_DHR55-2@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 1994 15:23:53 GMT
Date: 1994-10-31T15:23:53+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The presence or absence of pragma Inline should have no
effect on the order of elaboration, and certainly shouldn't
make a legal program illegal due to claimed elaboration 
circularities.  Sounds like a bug... (not that I don't
sympathize with the implementor in this case, but I sympathize
more with the user ;-).

-Tucker Taft   stt@inmet.com
Intermetrics, Inc.
Cambridge, MA  02138