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: 1997/04/22
Message-ID: <E91GKz.2E4@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 236574078
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>
 <mheaney-ya023680002104970117080001@news.ni.net> <E8znzn.DM2@world.std.com>
 <dewar.861656614@merv>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


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