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,df854b5838c3e14
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Gripe about Ada, rep specs that won't.
Date: 1996/03/22
Message-ID: <dewar.827535175@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 143820586
references: <00001a73+00002504@msn.com> <4isol4$dm7@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
 <Don8H5.AKI@world.std.com> <4iv0g6$6cs@news4.digex.net>
 <Doouos.6F9@world.std.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"This sounds like unfriendly behavior on the part of gnat.  There is no
semantic dependence on the body of a generic, but gnat introduces a
code-generation dependence on the generic body.  It seems to me that the
code generation dependence should not cause such a complaint."

I am not quite sure what Bob has in mind here. If you compile with -gnatc
to check the semantics, then of course you have no dependence. If you
are generating code, then -gnat83 is really like a configuration pragma
that has to be uniformly applied to ALL units in a program. 

In this case, one of the units in the program with's a package 
System.File_IO, which is a non-standard child package, and is definitely
NOT compatible with the use of Ada 83!