Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body

[bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)]

In article <dewar.861656614@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>iRobert Duff said
>
><<...which is almost always the case, in my experience...>>
>
>
>I don't think so at all, I often see generics instantiated in an
>inner scope, there is absolutely no reason to consider this somehow
>poor style -- on the contrary, it is better to instantiate the generic
>as locally as possible -- the normal rule for declarations ...

I didn't say it was poor style, and I agree with "as locally as
possible".  But, in my experience, that usually ends up being in a
library package, or *as* a library package.

><<<<It's best to assume that the generic has a body.  The client shouldn't
>  have to care.>>
>>>
>
>I don't see any reason to assume that a generic has a body, when you can
>tell from the spec that it is not allowed to have a body -- well at least
>you can tell if there is no private part ...

Because somebody might change the generic to have a body, and then all
the clients would be broken.  Anyway, if the generic is nested in a
package, you can't tell whether it has a body, so it's best to assume
that it does.

- Bob