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: 103376,7903a7ed8de6a521
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada 95 Compatibility
Date: 1996/02/26
Message-ID: <dewar.825373560@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 141288968
references: <312DA0EB.4422@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <4gmdfs$mdd@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <dewar.825179042@schonberg>
 <3131BCD1.832@lfwc.lockheed.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-02-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"I figured that the pragma Elaborate_Body would work with Ada 83 as well, in
that the pragma would be ignored and the body allowed. If you're saying that
the second example is safer in Ada 83, since you can't "forget" to compile
the body, then I understand."

Exactly, this is a real trap in Ada 83, and my approcah should be standard
practice in Ada 83 to avoid falling into that trap, and incidentally is
Ada 83 copatible.

Also the warning message for an ignored pragma may be, depending on
your environment, unacceptable (we compile GNAT with the -gnatwe switch
for example that makes warnings into fatal errors).