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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c459ff0adb576bc
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-02-04 13:15:25 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!130.133.1.3!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-107.5800-13.telinco.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Refactoring and Ada
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 20:48:05 -0000
Message-ID: <a3mtl6$18ase0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
References: <3C5AB0B7.9D75D49A@grammatech.com>
 <a3hi78$18ga0c$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <V4Y68.326$xE7.126341269@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>
 <a3hvml$183djn$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <5ee5b646.0202030553.6431291a@posting.google.com>
 <a3k691$18rkho$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>
 <5ee5b646.0202031817.1e8a3d90@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-107.5800-13.telinco.net (212.1.156.107)
X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1012857319 42299840 212.1.156.107 (16 [25716])
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19602
Date: 2002-02-04T20:48:05+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com> wrote in message
news:5ee5b646.0202031817.1e8a3d90@posting.google.com...

> "Nick Roberts" <nickroberts@adaos.worldonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<a3k691$18rkho$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de>...

> > If you're talking about the automated detection of
> > packages which are eligible to be pre-elaborated, is it
> > not the case that, in pratice, many packages which are
> > eligible cannot be detected automatically (because it
> > depends on dynamic behaviour beyond the grasp of static
> > analysis)?
>
> Complete disconnect here. The conditions for a package to
> be preelaborated are of course a set of static semantic
> conditions and are clearly stated in the RM (just look up
> the pragma in the RM). I can't guess what your confusion
> is here ...

Sorry, my mistake. Maybe I was thinking about a discussion a while ago on
this newsgroup about Elaborate_All.

It does actually raise a question in my mind: why was pragma Preelaborate
introduced in the first place? Would it not have been reasonable to assume
compilers could automatically determine whether a library unit is
preelaborable? (I guess the answer is "No": I just want to know why.)

--
Nick Roberts