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: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 237289394 References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <5jabeq$3ltk@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <5jfukp$lda@top.mitre.org> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-04-25T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: <> The best thing you could hope for is a general agreement on what it should look like if it is provided. Beyond that you have to let the market decide whether vendors should work on this. We have customers who are running into trouble with elaboration issues, which is why we have put work in on the elaboration problem, but so far, none of our customers have been willing to even request this feature, let alone offer to fund its development. Of course if several vendors implement it, then there is pressure for other vendors to follow suit, but it takes someone *really* interested to get a vendor to be the first. After all, we are all a little hesitant to get into the genuine language extension business!