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,baa6871d466e5af9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: AQ&S Guidance on pragma Elaborate_Body
Date: 1997/04/21
Message-ID: <dewar.861656614@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 236491106
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>
 <dsmith-2004971430400001@dsmith.clark.net> <dewar.861594771@merv>
 <mheaney-ya023680002104970117080001@news.ni.net> <E8znzn.DM2@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


iRobert Duff said

<<...which is almost always the case, in my experience...>>


I don't think so at all, I often see generics instantiated in an
inner scope, there is absolutely no reason to consider this somehow
poor style -- on the contrary, it is better to instantiate the generic
as locally as possible -- the normal rule for declarations ...

<<<<It's best to assume that the generic has a body.  The client shouldn't
  have to care.>>
>>

I don't see any reason to assume that a generic has a body, when you can
tell from the spec that it is not allowed to have a body -- well at least
you can tell if there is no private part ...