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,b68928049c4afefe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: stt@houdini.camb.inmet.com (Tucker Taft) Subject: Re: Remote Types packages in distributed systems Date: 1998/07/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 372480431 Sender: news@inmet.camb.inmet.com (USENET news) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: houdini.camb.inmet.com References: <6ooaao$f9d@top.mitre.org> Organization: Intermetrics, Inc. Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-07-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael F Brenner (mfb@mbunix.mitre.org) wrote: : There are two contradictory statements in Appendix E of the Ada : Language Reference Manual pertaining to remote-types. Which one : takes precedence? : E.2(9) Remote Types. The declaration of the library unit can depend : only on other remote types library units, or [a shared passive or a pure : unit]; the body of the library unit is unrestricted; ... : E.2.2(4) A remote types library unit is a library unit to which : the pragma Remote_Types applies. The following restrictions : apply to the declaration of such a library unit: : it shall be preelaborable; ... : It cannot have a preelaborable declaration if its body is unrestricted : and can import a non-preelaborable unit. Saying that the *spec* (aka "declaration") of a Remote_Types unit shall be preelaborable says nothing about the preelaborability of its body (aka "completion"). : Which of these two contradictory statements shall rule? I don't see the contradiction. : Mike Brenner -- -Tucker Taft stt@inmet.com http://www.inmet.com/~stt/ Intermetrics, Inc. Burlington, MA USA