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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 163910725 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > "So, the _post_ compilation rule of (15) sez for any body_stub (in the > relevant parent body) there exists a cooresponding subunit with the > "actual body" (so called proper_body). This bit seems to say the > proper_body is _not_ necessary for the compilation to succeed." > > Just to be absolutely clear, of COURSE a proper body is not necssary for > the compilation to succeed. The RM does not "seem to be saying this", it > says in as clear a manner as I can imagine, and there is no other > possible reading You can't be serious. Really. An _INFINITELY_ clearer statement would have simply been: "A proper_body is not required in the compilation environment for the compilation of the corresponding parent_body". THAT, is an example of "as clear a manner as I can imagine", NOT the opacity of "chase through several paragraphs and still not say anything explicit multi-speak" to be found in the RM on this. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com