From: Peter Amey <pna@erlang.praxis.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/23
Date: 1996-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960223084518.2010A-100000@erlang.praxis.co.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 4gi8o8$an2@newsbf02.news.aol.com
On 22 Feb 1996, John Herro wrote:
> In Ada 95, a package spec. that doesn't *need* an corresponding body
> can't *have* one. Here's a simplified program segment that I wrote in Ada
> 83:
>
[snip]
> Ada 95 seems like a lot more lines of code that the Ada 83 version. Do
> you guys think I rewrote it the best way, or do you have other
> suggestions? Thanks.
>
Isn't the pragma ELABORATE_BODY intended for this situation?
Peter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-02-23 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-02-22 0:00 Ada 95 Compatibility John Herro
1996-02-22 0:00 ` Mark A Biggar
1996-02-23 0:00 ` PHILIP W. BRASHEAR
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Peter Amey [this message]
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Keith Thompson
1996-02-23 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-02-24 0:00 ` John Herro
1996-02-24 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Ken Garlington
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-02-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox