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: 1997/04/23
Message-ID: <dewar.861853220@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237067078
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>
 <mheaney-ya023680002104972250240001@news.ni.net> <E91Gty.4DI@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204970735480001@news.ni.net> <E91yH8.36E@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204972039270001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-23T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew Heaney said

<<OK, I almost understand.  The elaboration of the generic itself is not very
interesting: it's the elaboration of the instantiation that we need to
think about carefully.  The rules go like this:>>

your statement of the rules is not quite complete, but is essentially right.

The elaboration of the generic itself is entirely analogous to the
elaboration of a subprogram. It is not completely a noop, because of
the fundamental rule that you cannot instantiate a generic (call a
subprogram) until the body of the generic is elaborated (the body of
the subprogram is elaborated).

Typically the code corresponding to the elaboration of a generic is to
set a flag that will be tested on instantiations (to make sure that it
is set).