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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.224.205.138 with SMTP id fq10mr784255qab.1.1371595926093; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:52:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.49.35.109 with SMTP id g13mr1976qej.1.1371595926046; Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:52:06 -0700 (PDT) Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!npeer01.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!bw2no2163722qab.0!news-out.google.com!y6ni3510qax.0!nntp.google.com!j2no689559qak.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 15:52:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122; posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122 References: <7f33982d-3bcf-452e-a3b3-3a0a28505ff1@x20g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> <87r4g0g9c0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <87ip1bg4z2.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Elaboration order handling (Was: Bug in 'gnatmake') From: Adam Beneschan Injection-Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:52:06 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Received-Bytes: 2301 Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:15816 Date: 2013-06-18T15:52:05-07:00 List-Id: On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 10:09:21 AM UTC-7, Robert A Duff wrote: > It is certainly a big language-design flaw that the elab order is > implementation defined. Ada code tends to be pretty portable for the > most part, but elab order is one of the top issues that cause > non-portability. That and overuse of representation clauses. Yeah, but if they had decided to specify the order instead of leaving it im= plementation-defined, what order could they have chosen? Alphabetical? (T= hink about what joy that would have caused the ARG when Unicode support was= added to the language!!!) I think the problem is that, unlike some cases = (like subprogram parameters, where the language designers *could* have spec= ified left-to-right evaluation instead of implementation-defined order), th= ere's no natural ordering of library packages in a program. So I don't eve= n see the beginning of a solution. -- Adam