Re: Is there a reason System.Storage_Pools isn't Pure?

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message 
news:od743q$p4n$1@gioia.aioe.org...
...
> A lot of use cases conflated into single pragma Pure:
>
> 1. Value/object identity
> 2. Elaboration
> 3. Early evaluation (e.g. compile time, elaboration time)
>
> It must be reworked from the start, IMO.

More like abandoned. Our current thinking is to essentially replace it by 
specifications of the Global aspect (which is stricter, so the result can be 
usefully used in parallelism applications) and finer grained (so individual 
subprograms can each have appropriate settings, no more "everything in the 
package has to be the same").

That would leave the only real purposes of Pure to be distribution and 
elaboration; the former uses don't want access types at all, and the latter 
can be handled just using Preelaborate does the job. (Ergo: most of what was 
done to Pure in Ada 2005 was a mistake, an attempt to fix the muddled mess 
resulting in a bigger muddled mess.)

                                       Randy.