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: 1997/04/29
Message-ID: <dewar.862311716@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 238148027
References: <528878564wnr@diphi.demon.co.uk>
 	<dewar.861642821@merv><E940xu.62B@world.std.com>
 	<dewar.861854112@merv><E95IKB.4Gx@world.std.com>
 	<dewar.861936524@merv><336089AF.6046@elca-matrix.ch>
 	<EACHUS.97Apr25151539@spectre.mitre.org>
 	<01bc5260$373835e0$28f982c1@xhv46.dial.pipex.com> 	<dewar.862079640@merv>
 <EACHUS.97Apr28154951@spectre.mitre.org>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-04-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert Eachus says

<<    And, yes, I have worked with programs where the "right"
elaboration order could only be determined from files read at
execution time.  Of course the programming team knew the right order
and embedded it in Elaborates and project documentation.>>

I find this sort of thing bad programming practice. If you are doing anything
this fancy at elaboration time, it is likely to get you into trouble, and you
do better to make the "elaboration" explicit rather than implicit, by
introducing appropriate explicit initialization routines.