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
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!goblin3!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeffrey Carter <spam.jrcarter.not@spam.not.acm.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Elaboration order handling (Was: Bug in 'gnatmake')
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 18:21:02 -0700
Organization: Also freenews.netfront.net; news.tornevall.net
Message-ID: <kpr0oh$rt9$3@dont-email.me>
References: 
 <7f33982d-3bcf-452e-a3b3-3a0a28505ff1@x20g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>
 <87r4g0g9c0.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <lysj0glghs.fsf@pushface.org>
 <87ip1bg4z2.fsf_-_@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk>
 <wcczjun4a7y.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com>
 <db04ccb2-a3f7-4daa-8846-df9a992a0f85@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 01:16:03 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx05.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="ea9e222491b6e4ac16c72e6c1b727e42";
 logging-data="28585"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
 posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19U8t5RyTP+LqVoXjSA93LrSZMRVdfpCpg="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
 rv:17.0) Gecko/17.0 Thunderbird/17.0
In-Reply-To: <db04ccb2-a3f7-4daa-8846-df9a992a0f85@googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:szpVWdIqXGSAwlzdSJErFN7rmek=
X-Original-Bytes: 2643
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:181934
Date: 2013-06-18T18:21:02-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 06/18/2013 03:52 PM, Adam Beneschan wrote:
>
> Yeah, but if they had decided to specify the order instead of leaving it
> implementation-defined, what order could they have chosen?  Alphabetical?
> (Think about what joy that would have caused the ARG when Unicode support was
> added to the language!!!)  I think the problem is that, unlike some cases
> (like subprogram parameters, where the language designers *could* have
> specified left-to-right evaluation instead of implementation-defined order),
> there's no natural ordering of library packages in a program.  So I don't
> even see the beginning of a solution.

Elaboration order isn't entirely implementation defined, is it? There's a 
partial order defined by calls made during elaboration from one pkg to another. 
Within that ordering there may be groups of pkgs that may be elaborated in any 
order after the pkgs that must be elaborated before them and before the pkgs 
they must be elaborated before. Within those groups, why not use lexical order 
of pkg names?

-- 
Jeff Carter
"Ah, go away or I'll kill ya."
Never Give a Sucker an Even Break
100