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: 103376,5dba30d6260ef552
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Simon Wright <simon@pogner.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Elaboration Order
Date: 1999/11/20
Message-ID: <x7vln7tougc.fsf@pogner.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 551071104
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
References: <FL8IuH.677@sd.aonix.com> <80p0au$6n1$1@wanadoo.fr>
 <80pcgf$80b$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <80s2hr$i9j$1@wanadoo.fr>
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 943139032 nnrp-09:258 NO-IDENT
 pogner.demon.co.uk:158.152.70.98
Organization: At Home
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
Date: 1999-11-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen.adalog@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> Alternatively, it could be defined as meaning that all descendants of the
> unit should be elaborated after the specification, in an implementation
> defined order, but before any unit which is not a descendant of the unit.

Well, perhaps only those descendants of the unit actually in this closure?