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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/06 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167163541 references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> <4rckva$dj1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-06T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: 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.