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-Thread: 103376,3a3d295a91a47a88,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!not-for-mail
From: adam@irvine.com (Adam Beneschan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Preelaborable generic body: question
Date: 29 Nov 2004 18:05:20 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <b4682ab7.0411291805.1579e730@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1101780321 25311 127.0.0.1 (30 Nov 2004 02:05:21
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 02:05:21 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6658
Date: 2004-11-29T18:05:20-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In this example:

generic
   x1: integer;
package pak2 is
   pragma Preelaborate;
   pragma Elaborate_Body;
end pak2;

package body pak2 is
   x2: integer := x1;
end pak2;

My reading is that 10.2.1(10) makes this illegal, because it's
possible to instantiate pak2 with an actual for "x1" that would cause
the declaration of x2 to perform an action that 10.2.1(6-7) makes
nonpreelaborable.  (You could instantiate pak2 with an actual that
contains a function call or the name of an object, e.g.)

Is my reading correct?

                                   -- thanks, Adam