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: 1997/04/26
Message-ID: <dewar.862097521@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 237617877
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk> <dewar.861414695@merv>
 <5jabeq$3ltk@info4.rus.uni-stuttgart.de> <5jfukp$lda@top.mitre.org>
 <dewar.861816859@merv> <mheaney-ya023680002404970907100001@news.ni.net>
 <JSA.97Apr24162056@alexandria>
 <mheaney-ya023680002404972329250001@news.ni.net>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-26T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Matthew Heaney said

<<You're right, I'm not especially passionate about wanting to define
mutually recursive types across package boundaries.>>

That's fair enough, but what puzzled everyone was that you *do* seem
passionate about not wanting even mutual body dependencies (i.e. situations
where the bodies of two packages A, and B, both with one another's specs)

Are you really *sure* you meant to say this -- it is a rather extraordinary
position, and I must say I have not seen any large scale Ada program that
did not have such dependencies, they seem routine to me!