Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat?

[dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)]

Jon said

"You can't be serious.  Really.  An _INFINITELY_ clearer statement would
have simply been:

  "A proper_body is not required in the compilation environment for the
   compilation of the corresponding parent_body"."

Such a statement would  be entirely inappropriate in the main body of 
the standard, which is in the business of telling you what *is* required
not what is *not* required. From a formal point of view, the above 
statement makes as much sense as saying:

   "Geese and cows are not required in the compilation environment for the
    compilation of the corresponding parent_body"

It would be legitimate to add your statement as a note, if there is
agreement that this is something that confuses people. For me, the
idea that it is even conceivable that proper bodies of stubs would
have to be around to compile the parent is so obviously incorrect
that the note would be redundant. If this were the case, you would
have no separate compilation at all for stubs, and that would make
no sense at all, since the whole point of separate units is to be
able to compile them separately.