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: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Elaboration order
Date: 1996/03/26
Message-ID: <dewar.827846300@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 144337515
references: <314829CD.4FA9@lfwc.lockheed.com>
 <1996Mar16.213029.24934@enterprise.rdd.lmsc.lockheed.com>
 <adaworksDouqCL.Hnp@netcom.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-03-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Richard Riehle sais

"           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, have you looked closely at pragma Preelaborate? As I have noted
before, this seems worth exploring in this context. The question for you
is how would pragma Preelaborate differe from pragma Restriction (NSCI),
and is this difference important.

pragma Preelaborate is an important feature of Ada 95, one that everyone
should be throughly familiar with.