Re: Preelaboration

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

> In addition, formal types aren't allowed to have language-defined aspects,
> as that would add implicit contracts to the specification (and notably,
> would need rules for those contracts). pragma P_I isn't allowed in a formal
> part, either.

But 10.2.1(10.1), (11.2) explicitly mention P_I in a formal part?

> But this area is complicated (I might be getting it all wrong) and it
> probably doesn't do what you want anyway (Pure/Preelaborable categorizations
> in general were a failure, as they can't be applied to the majority of
> packages). I don't really have any advice, other than if you really care,
> look up the old AIs on the topic.

Thanks for the advice. Things are clearer now, I think; anyway, it turns
out it was indeed the generic that caused the package it was
instantiated in to require elaboration. I expanded the generic (of which
this was the only instance, huh) by hand in the caller, no more
elaboration.

GNAT has a program-unit restriction No_Elaboration_Code[1] which is a
lot closer to what I want. I can't remember now how I got into the state
where the compiler told me I couldn't use it ...

[1] https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/No_005fElaboration_005fCode.html