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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,28b389d4503cb555
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: generic package dilemma
Date: 1999/11/18
Message-ID: <wcc1z9nzzsz.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 550115809
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <80u48b$ghr$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> <3832e27f_1@news1.prserv.net>
 <3832E75D.5B1BA719@mail.com> <383319e8_4@news1.prserv.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-11-18T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Matthew Heaney" <matthew_heaney@acm.org> writes:

> I didn't think Elaborate vs Elaborate_All made any difference for
> generics.  From Cohen's AAASL, p682:
> 
> (start of quote)
> In all other cases, however, a with clause for a library generic unit
> should be accompanied by an Elaborate pragma for that unit...
> 
> An Elaborate_All pragma can be used instead of an Elaborate pragma, but
> this is not really necessary because the elaboration of a generic body
> never gives rise to a subprogram call.
> (end of quote)

But elaboration of the *instance* can call something that might cause
trouble.  And, as somebody else pointed out, you can have nested
instantiations.

- Bob