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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a24:56cf:: with SMTP id o198mr1269887itb.12.1555448097156;
        Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:cc86:: with SMTP id
 c128mr23295835oig.119.1555448096982;
 Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.gegeweb.eu!gegeweb.org!usenet-fr.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.166.216.MISMATCH!136no18067itk.0!news-out.google.com!w17ni28itb.0!nntp.google.com!b2no19039itd.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 13:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <q93bqr$qj3$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2.123.143.189;
 posting-account=L2-UcQkAAAAfd_BqbeNHs3XeM0jTXloS
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2.123.143.189
References: <b411a770-5e86-4d5e-9e43-e52843be724d@googlegroups.com>
 <bc07b54c-0e86-4a40-931c-ca52d0295564@googlegroups.com>
 <q93bqr$qj3$1@franka.jacob-sparre.dk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <eea7b282-3a5a-4274-adbf-81f8f6741e67@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why can't objects be static in Ada?
From: Lucretia <laguest9000@googlemail.com>
Injection-Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 20:54:57 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56140
Date: 2019-04-16T13:54:56-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 02:40:45 UTC+1, Randy Brukardt  wrote:

> I view this as self-inflicted, because there's no little value to pragma 
> Preelaborate. As I previously noted, compilers will almost always generate 

Nope, I didn't implement it, someone else did.

> the best possible elaboration code whether or not that pragma is applied. 
> And regardless of C.4, not all preelaborated code can be done before load 
> time, so it isn't providing a benefit in forcing that sort of code, either.
> 
> It's one of the ideas where Ada tried to accomplish something, but didn't 
> quite succeed. Pure is like that as well, but at least it provides some 
> benefits for Annex E code. Preelaborate doesn't even do that.

If it didn't succeed, why is it still part of the language? This is the typical attitude of the ARG refusing to deprecate old stuff.

 
Luke.