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
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,16e3a8dd4f3ab3f3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: Elaboration order
Date: 1996/03/26
Message-ID: <DovqDM.MD2@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144180262
references: <314829CD.4FA9@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <1996Mar16.213029.24934@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 <adaworksDouqCL.Hnp@netcom.com> <dewar.827846300@schonberg>
organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.827846300@schonberg>, Robert Dewar <dewar@cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>pragma Preelaborate is an important feature of Ada 95, one that everyone
>should be throughly familiar with.

Yes, and pragma Pure is useful, too.

Unfortunately, I've had a great deal of trouble using Preelaborate and
Pure, because I always find myself wanting to put in some debugging
print-outs, and saying "with" of an I/O package poisons everything so I
can't use Preelab or Pure.  And there's no telling when you're going to
need a debugging print out.  And it's kind of a pain if you have to
*remove* a pragma Preelaborate during the process of finding one bug,
because that modification might introduce *another* bug, causing
confusion.

Gdb is not quite up to the point where I can use it all the time instead
of debugging print-outs.  (Of course, reading one's code is usually a
better way of tracking down bugs, but not always.)

- Bob