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: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Preelaboration
Date: Mon, 16 May 2016 22:03:47 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <lya8jpoguk.fsf@pushface.org>
References: <lymvnqnf3h.fsf@pushface.org> <nhdai7$d1$1@loke.gir.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: mx02.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="df4c32f3bd97eb14b94825e0d909f9c9";
	logging-data="8145"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18GtXlqAOEoEOJhLCRHbiOS+LVoPB+D3MM="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:2+79O1l07/f/nFq3tPtGTfCGucQ=
	sha1:LfJdGVIJYlOGV1v3Yirvkt2Dvq8=
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:30424
Date: 2016-05-16T22:03:47+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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