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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body Date: 1997/04/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237258752 Distribution: world References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <5jabeq$3ltk@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <5jfukp$lda@top.mitre.org> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article mheaney@ni.net (Matthew Heaney) writes: > >That is incorrect, you can certainly create cases of legitimate programs > >where the use of Elaborate_Body will cause elaboration circularities. A > >trivial example is two packages, each of whose bodies with's the others > >spec, which is not that uncommon. > > It may be true that it "is not that uncommon," but mutual dependency of > packages indicates that you have a pair of highly cohesive abstractions, > and they should really be combined into a single package. Hmmm, you're probably about the only one left here that believes this. The "withing problem" (and this is for SPECS, not just the above sort of case) has been discussed here extensively and the general consensus is that this inability (to define mutually dependent types across package boundaries) is a hole in the language. The great maker himself, STT, has come to hold this position. BTW, anyone know whatever became of Tucker's proposal of "with package.type" for solving this?? I know it wasn't going to be "formally" accepted somehow, but wasn't there going to be some sort of general agreement to provide this? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com