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: 1997/04/25
Message-ID: <dewar.861972131@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237289385
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204970735480001@news.ni.net> <E91yH8.36E@world.std.com>
 <mheaney-ya023680002204972039270001@news.ni.net> <E9415t.8z9@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Bob said

<<In practice, this leads to the simple rule: Always use Elaborate_All
instead of Elaborate, except when you can't.  "When you can't" means
there's some sort of mutual recursion going on, and you have to use
Elaborate instead.>>

This is definitely an appropriate rule. In fact for a while, the design
team had the view that this rule was so widely applicable that they
consigned pragma Elaborate to Annex J (the dreaded obsolescent feature
pile). But I found a few examples (from the GNAT runtime actually) that]
convinced us to keep pragma Elaborate as a first class citizen.

Still it is very rarely appropriate to use it.