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,baa6871d466e5af9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
Subject: Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body
Date: 1997/04/18
Message-ID: <E8uu7G.Dy8@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 235879735
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>,
JP Thornley  <jpt@diphi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>So is there a meaningful message struggling to get out here?  [Perhaps 
>"a clear requirement" can be replaced by "no requirement", so that a 
>successful build confirms that no circular package depencies have been 
>introduced unwittingly.]

I dunno.  My theory is to use the first pragma in the following list
that works:

    Pure
    Preelaborate
    Elaborate_Body
    Elaborate_All
    Elaborate

The first three make life easier, because they go on the package (rather
than on all clients), and they pretty much prevent access-before-elab
failures.

- Bob