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: 103376,16e3a8dd4f3ab3f3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: adaworks@netcom.com (AdaWorks) Subject: Re: Elaboration order Date: 1996/03/26 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 144314869 sender: adaworks@netcom19.netcom.com references: <314829CD.4FA9@lfwc.lockheed.com> <1996Mar16.213029.24934@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com> organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-03-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Joe Wierzbowski (jwierzbo@hercii.lasc.lockheed.com) wrote: : 2) Don't make initial assignments using subprogram calls in a : declarative region. This is a common mistake, so much so : that it may be worth adding a restriction against doing so : in a coding standard. Now there's an interesting idea: pragma Restriction(No_Subprogram_Call_Initialization); HmmmMMMMMmmmmmm! I wonder about the implications of this. Language lawyers? ? ? Richard Riehle -- richard@adaworks.com AdaWorks Software Engineering Suite 27 2555 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 (415) 328-1815 FAX 328-1112