Ada Conformity Assessment Authority      Home Conformity Assessment   Test Suite ARGAda Standard
 
Annotated Ada Reference ManualLegal Information
Contents   Index   References   Search   Previous   Next 

10.2.1 Elaboration Control

1
[ This subclause defines pragmas that help control the elaboration order of library_items.]

Language Design Principles

1.a
The rules governing preelaboration are designed to allow it to be done largely by bulk initialization of statically allocated storage from information in a “load module” created by a linker. Some implementations may require run-time code to be executed in some cases, but we consider these cases rare enough that we need not further complicate the rules.
1.b
It is important that programs be able to declare data structures that are link-time initialized with aggregates, string_literals, and concatenations thereof. It is important to be able to write link-time evaluated expressions involving the First, Last, and Length attributes of such data structures (including variables), because they might be initialized with positional aggregates or string_literals, and we don't want the user to have to count the elements. There is no corresponding need for accessing discriminants, since they can be initialized with a static constant, and then the constant can be referred to elsewhere. It is important to allow link-time initialized data structures involving discriminant-dependent components. It is important to be able to write link-time evaluated expressions involving pointers (both access values and addresses) to the above-mentioned data structures.
1.c
The rules also ensure that no Elaboration_Check need be performed for calls on library-level subprograms declared within a preelaborated package. This is true also of the Elaboration_Check on task activation for library level task types declared in a preelaborated package. However, it is not true of the Elaboration_Check on instantiations.
1.d
A static expression should never prevent a library unit from being preelaborable.

Syntax

2
The form of a pragma Preelaborate is as follows: 
3
  pragma Preelaborate[(library_unit_name)];
4
A pragma Preelaborate is a library unit pragma. 
4.1/2
{AI95-00161-01} The form of a pragma Preelaborable_Initialization is as follows: 
4.2/2
  pragma Preelaborable_Initialization(direct_name);

Legality Rules

5
An elaborable construct is preelaborable unless its elaboration performs any of the following actions: 
5.a
Ramification: A preelaborable construct can be elaborated without using any information that is available only at run time. Note that we don't try to prevent exceptions in preelaborable constructs; if the implementation wishes to generate code to raise an exception, that's OK.
5.b
Because there is no flow of control and there are no calls (other than to predefined subprograms), these run-time properties can actually be detected at compile time. This is necessary in order to require compile-time enforcement of the rules. 
6
The execution of a statement other than a null_statement.
6.a
Ramification: A preelaborable construct can contain labels and null_statements.
7
A call to a subprogram other than a static function.
8
The evaluation of a primary that is a name of an object, unless the name is a static expression, or statically denotes a discriminant of an enclosing type. 
8.a
Ramification: One can evaluate such a name, but not as a primary. For example, one can evaluate an attribute of the object. One can evaluate an attribute_reference, so long as it does not denote an object, and its prefix does not disobey any of these rules. For example, Obj'Access, Obj'Unchecked_Access, and Obj'Address are generally legal in preelaborated library units. 
9/3
{AI95-00161-01} {AI05-0028-1} The creation of an object [(including a component)] that is initialized by default, if its type does not have preelaborable initialization. Similarly, the evaluation of an extension_aggregate with an ancestor subtype_mark denoting a subtype of such a type.
9.a
Ramification: One can declare these kinds of types, but one cannot create objects of those types.
9.b
It is also nonpreelaborable to create an object if that will cause the evaluation of a default expression that will call a user-defined function. This follows from the rule above forbidding nonnull statements. 
9.c/2
This paragraph was deleted.{AI95-00161-01}
10/2
 {AI95-00403-01} A generic body is preelaborable only if elaboration of a corresponding instance body would not perform any such actions, presuming that:
10.1/3
{AI95-00403-01} {AI95-0028-1} the actual for each discriminated formal derived type, formal private type, or formal private extension declared within the formal part of the generic unit is a type that does not have preelaborable initialization, unless pragma Preelaborable_Initialization has been applied to the formal type;
10.2/2
{AI95-00403-01} the actual for each formal type is nonstatic;
10.3/2
{AI95-00403-01} the actual for each formal object is nonstatic; and
10.4/2
{AI95-00403-01} the actual for each formal subprogram is a user-defined subprogram. 
10.a.1/2
Discussion: {AI95-00403-01} This is an “assume-the-worst” rule. The elaboration of a generic unit doesn't perform any of the actions listed above, because its sole effect is to establish that the generic can from now on be instantiated. So the elaboration of the generic itself is not the interesting part when it comes to preelaboration rules. The interesting part is what happens when you elaborate “any instantiation” of the generic. For instance, declaring an object of a limited formal private type might well start tasks, call functions, and do all sorts of nonpreelaborable things. We prevent these situations by assuming that the actual parameters are as badly behaved as possible. 
10.a
Reason: Without this rule about generics, we would have to forbid instantiations in preelaborated library units, which would significantly reduce their usefulness. 
11/3
 {8652/0035} {AI95-00002-01} {AI05-0034-1} {AI05-0243-1} A pragma Preelaborate (or pragma Pure — see below) is used to specify that a library unit is preelaborated, namely that the Preelaborate aspect of the library unit is True; all compilation units of the library unit are preelaborated. The declaration and body of a preelaborated library unit, and all subunits that are elaborated as part of elaborating the library unit, shall be preelaborable. All compilation units of a preelaborated library unit shall depend semantically only on declared pure or preelaborated library_items. In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), these rules also apply in the private part of an instance of a generic unit. [ If a library unit is preelaborated, then its declaration, if any, and body, if any, are elaborated prior to all nonpreelaborated library_items of the partition.] 
11.a
Ramification: In a generic body, we assume the worst about formal private types and extensions.
11.a.1/1
{8652/0035} {AI95-00002-01} Subunits of a preelaborated subprogram unit do not need to be preelaborable. This is needed in order to be consistent with units nested in a subprogram body, which do not need to be preelaborable even if the subprogram is preelaborated. However, such subunits cannot depend semantically on nonpreelaborated units, which is also consistent with nested units. 
11.b/3
Aspect Description for Preelaborate: Code execution during elaboration is avoided for a given package.
11.1/2
   {AI95-00161-01} The following rules specify which entities have preelaborable initialization:
11.2/3
{AI05-0028-1} The partial view of a private type or private extension, a protected type without entry_declarations, a generic formal private type, or a generic formal derived type, has preelaborable initialization if and only if the pragma Preelaborable_Initialization has been applied to them. [A protected type with entry_declarations or a task type never has preelaborable initialization.]
11.3/2
A component (including a discriminant) of a record or protected type has preelaborable initialization if its declaration includes a default_expression whose execution does not perform any actions prohibited in preelaborable constructs as described above, or if its declaration does not include a default expression and its type has preelaborable initialization.
11.4/3
{AI05-0028-1} {AI05-0221-1} A derived type has preelaborable initialization if its parent type has preelaborable initialization and if the noninherited components all have preelaborable initialization. However, a controlled type with an Initialize procedure that is not a null procedure does not have preelaborable initialization.
11.5/2
{AI95-00161-01} {AI95-00345-01} A view of a type has preelaborable initialization if it is an elementary type, an array type whose component type has preelaborable initialization, a record type whose components all have preelaborable initialization, or an interface type. 
11.6/2
   {AI95-00161-01} A pragma Preelaborable_Initialization specifies that a type has preelaborable initialization. This pragma shall appear in the visible part of a package or generic package.
11.7/3
   {AI95-00161-01} {AI95-00345-01} {AI05-0028-1} If the pragma appears in the first list of basic_declarative_items of a package_specification, then the direct_name shall denote the first subtype of a composite type, and the type shall be declared immediately within the same package as the pragma. If the pragma is applied to a private type or a private extension, the full view of the type shall have preelaborable initialization. If the pragma is applied to a protected type, the protected type shall not have entries, and each component of the protected type shall have preelaborable initialization. For any other composite type, the type shall have preelaborable initialization. In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), these rules apply also in the private part of an instance of a generic unit.
11.c/3
Reason: {AI05-0028-1} The reason why we need the pragma for private types, private extensions, and protected types is fairly clear: the properties of the full view determine whether the type has preelaborable initialization or not; in order to preserve privacy we need a way to express on the partial view that the full view is well-behaved. The reason why we need the pragma for other composite types is more subtle: a nonnull override for Initialize might occur in the private part, even for a nonprivate type; in order to preserve privacy, we need a way to express on a type declared in a visible part that the private part does not contain any nasty override of Initialize. 
11.8/2
   {AI95-00161-01} If the pragma appears in a generic_formal_part, then the direct_name shall denote a generic formal private type or a generic formal derived type declared in the same generic_formal_part as the pragma. In a generic_instantiation the corresponding actual type shall have preelaborable initialization.
11.d/2
Ramification: Not only do protected types with entry_declarations and task types not have preelaborable initialization, but they cannot have pragma Preelaborable_Initialization applied to them. 

Implementation Advice

12
In an implementation, a type declared in a preelaborated package should have the same representation in every elaboration of a given version of the package, whether the elaborations occur in distinct executions of the same program, or in executions of distinct programs or partitions that include the given version. 
12.a/2
Implementation Advice: A type declared in a preelaborated package should have the same representation in every elaboration of a given version of the package.

Syntax

13
The form of a pragma Pure is as follows: 
14
  pragma Pure[(library_unit_name)];
15
A pragma Pure is a library unit pragma. 

Static Semantics

15.1/3
   {AI95-00366-01} {AI05-0035-1} A pure compilation unit is a preelaborable compilation unit whose elaboration does not perform any of the following actions:
15.2/2
the elaboration of a variable declaration;
15.3/2
the evaluation of an allocator of an access-to-variable type; for the purposes of this rule, the partial view of a type is presumed to have nonvisible components whose default initialization evaluates such an allocator;
15.a.1/3
Reason: {AI05-0004-1} Such an allocator would provide a backdoor way to get a global variable into a pure unit, so it is prohibited. Most such allocators are illegal anyway, as their type is required to have Storage_Size = 0 (see the next two rules). But access parameters and access discriminants don't necessarily disallow allocators. However, a call is also illegal here (by the preelaboration rules), so access parameters cannot cause trouble. So this rule is really about prohibiting allocators in discriminant constraints:
15.a.2/3
type Rec (Acc : access Integer) is record
    C : Character;
end record;
15.a.3/3
Not_Const : constant Rec (Acc => new Integer'(2)); -- Illegal in a pure unit.
15.a/3
{AI05-0004-1} The second half of the rule is needed because aggregates can specify the default initialization of a private type or extension using <> or the ancestor subtype of an extension aggregate. The subtype of a component could use an allocator to initialize an access discriminant; the type still could have a pragma Preelaborable_Initialization given. Ada 95 did not allow such private types to have preelaborable initialization, so such a default initialization could not have occurred. Thus this rule is not incompatible with Ada 95. 
15.4/3
{AI05-0035-1} the elaboration of the declaration of a nonderived named access-to-variable type unless the Storage_Size of the type has been specified by a static expression with value zero or is defined by the language to be zero;
15.b/2
Discussion: A remote access-to-class-wide type (see E.2.2) has its Storage_Size defined to be zero. 
15.c/2
Reason: {AI95-00366-01} We disallow most named access-to-object types because an allocator has a side effect; the pool constitutes variable data. We allow access-to-subprogram types because they don't have allocators. We even allow named access-to-object types if they have an empty predefined pool (they can't have a user-defined pool as System.Storage_Pools is not pure). In this case, most attempts to use an allocator are illegal, and any others (in a generic body) will raise Storage_Error.
15.5/3
{AI05-0035-1} the elaboration of the declaration of a nonderived named access-to-constant type for which the Storage_Size has been specified by an expression other than a static expression with value zero.
15.d/2
Discussion: We allow access-to-constant types so long as there is no user-specified nonzero Storage_Size; if there were a user-specified nonzero Storage_Size restricting the size of the storage pool, allocators would be problematic since the package is supposedly ‘stateless’, and the allocated size count for the storage pool would represent state. 
15.6/3
   {AI05-0035-1} A generic body is pure only if elaboration of a corresponding instance body would not perform any such actions presuming any composite formal types have nonvisible components whose default initialization evaluates an allocator of an access-to-variable type.
15.7/2
   {AI95-00366-01} The Storage_Size for an anonymous access-to-variable type declared at library level in a library unit that is declared pure is defined to be zero.
15.e/2
Ramification: This makes allocators illegal for such types (see 4.8), making a storage pool unnecessary for these types. A storage pool would represent state.
15.f/2
Note that access discriminants and access parameters are never library-level, even when they are declared in a type or subprogram declared at library-level. That's because they have their own special accessibility rules (see 3.10.2). 

Legality Rules

16/2
 This paragraph was deleted.{AI95-00366-01}
17/3
 {AI95-00366-01} {AI05-0034-1} {AI05-0035-1} {AI05-0243-1} A pragma Pure is used to specify that a library unit is declared pure, namely that the Pure aspect of the library unit is True; all compilation units of the library unit are declared pure. In addition, the limited view of any library package is declared pure. The declaration and body of a declared pure library unit, and all subunits that are elaborated as part of elaborating the library unit, shall be pure. All compilation units of a declared pure library unit shall depend semantically only on declared pure library_items. In addition to the places where Legality Rules normally apply (see 12.3), these rules also apply in the private part of an instance of a generic unit. Furthermore, the full view of any partial view declared in the visible part of a declared pure library unit that has any available stream attributes shall support external streaming (see 13.13.2). 
17.a/3
This paragraph was deleted.{AI05-0243-1}
17.b
Discussion: A declared-pure package is useful for defining types to be shared between partitions with no common address space. 
17.c
Reason: Note that generic packages are not mentioned in the list of things that can contain variable declarations. Note that the Ada 95 rules for deferred constants make them allowable in library units that are declared pure; that isn't true of Ada 83's deferred constants. 
17.d/2
Ramification: {AI95-00366-01} Anonymous access types are allowed.
17.d.1/3
{AI05-0243-1} A limited view is not a library unit, so any rule that starts “declared pure library unit” does not apply to a limited view. In particular, the 3rd and last sentences never apply to limited views. However, a limited view is a library_item, so rules that discuss “declared pure library_items” do include limited views. 
17.e/2
Reason: {AI95-00366-01} Ada 95 didn't allow any access types as these (including access-to-subprogram types) cause trouble for Annex E, “Distributed Systems”, because such types allow access values in a shared passive partition to designate objects in an active partition, thus allowing inter-address space references. We decided to disallow such uses in the relatively rare cases where they cause problems, rather than making life harder for the majority of users. Types declared in a pure package can be used in remote operations only if they are externally streamable. That simply means that there is a means to transport values of the type; that's automatically true for nonlimited types that don't have an access part. The only tricky part about this is to avoid privacy leakage; that was handled by ensuring that any private types (and private extensions) declared in a pure package that have available stream attributes (which include all nonlimited types by definition) have to be externally streamable.
17.f/3
Aspect Description for Pure: Side effects are avoided in the subprograms of a given package.

Erroneous Execution

17.1/4
   {AI12-0076-1} Execution is erroneous if some operation (other than the initialization or finalization of the object) modifies the value of a constant object declared at library-level in a pure package.
17.g/4
Discussion: This could be accomplished via a self-referencing pointer or via squirrelling a writable pointer to a controlled object. 

Implementation Permissions

18/3
 {AI95-00366-01} {AI05-0219-1} If a library unit is declared pure, then the implementation is permitted to omit a call on a library-level subprogram of the library unit if the results are not needed after the call. In addition, the implementation may omit a call on such a subprogram and simply reuse the results produced by an earlier call on the same subprogram, provided that none of the parameters nor any object accessible via access values from the parameters have any part that is of a type whose full type is an immutably limited type, and the addresses and values of all by-reference actual parameters, the values of all by-copy-in actual parameters, and the values of all objects accessible via access values from the parameters, are the same as they were at the earlier call. [This permission applies even if the subprogram produces other side effects when called.] 
18.a/3
Discussion: {AI95-00366-01} {AI05-0005-1} {AI05-0299-1} A declared-pure library_item has no variable state. Hence, a call on one of its (nonnested) subprograms cannot normally have side effects. Side effects are still possible via dispatching calls and via indirect calls through access-to-subprogram values. Other mechanisms that might be used to modify variable state include machine code insertions, imported subprograms, and unchecked conversion to an access type declared within the subprogram; this list is not exhaustive. Thus, the permissions described in this subclause may apply to a subprogram whose execution has side effects. The compiler may omit a call to such a subprogram even if side effects exist, so the writer of such a subprogram has to keep this in mind. 

Syntax

19
The form of a pragma Elaborate, Elaborate_All, or Elaborate_Body is as follows: 
20
  pragma Elaborate(library_unit_name{, library_unit_name});
21
  pragma Elaborate_All(library_unit_name{, library_unit_name});
22
  pragma Elaborate_Body[(library_unit_name)];
23
A pragma Elaborate or Elaborate_All is only allowed within a context_clause.
23.a
Ramification: “Within a context_clause” allows it to be the last item in the context_clause. It can't be first, because the name has to denote something mentioned earlier. 
24
A pragma Elaborate_Body is a library unit pragma. 
24.a
Discussion: Hence, a pragma Elaborate or Elaborate_All is not elaborated, not that it makes any practical difference.
24.b
Note that a pragma Elaborate or Elaborate_All is neither a program unit pragma, nor a library unit pragma.

Legality Rules

25/3
 {AI05-0229-1} If the aspect Elaborate_Body is True for a declaration [(including when pragma Elaborate_Body applies)], then the declaration requires a completion [(a body)].
25.a/3
Proof: {AI05-0229-1} Pragma Elaborate_Body sets the aspect (see below). 
25.1/2
   {AI95-00217-06} The library_unit_name of a pragma Elaborate or Elaborate_All shall denote a nonlimited view of a library unit. 
25.b/2
Reason: These pragmas are intended to prevent elaboration check failures. But a limited view does not make anything visible that has an elaboration check, so the pragmas cannot do anything useful. Moreover, the pragmas would probably reintroduce the circularity that the limited_with_clause was intended to break. So we make such uses illegal. 

Static Semantics

26/3
 {AI05-0229-1} [A pragma Elaborate specifies that the body of the named library unit is elaborated before the current library_item. A pragma Elaborate_All specifies that each library_item that is needed by the named library unit declaration is elaborated before the current library_item.]
26.a
Proof: The official statement of the semantics of these pragmas is given in 10.2
26.1/3
   {AI05-0229-1} A pragma Elaborate_Body sets the Elaborate_Body representation aspect of the library unit to which it applies to the value True. [If the Elaborate_Body aspect of a library unit is True, the body of the library unit is elaborated immediately after its declaration.]
26.a.1/3
Proof: The official statement of the semantics of this aspect is given in 10.2.
26.b
Implementation Note: The presence of a pragma Elaborate_Body simplifies the removal of unnecessary Elaboration_Checks. For a subprogram declared immediately within a library unit to which a pragma Elaborate_Body applies, the only calls that can fail the Elaboration_Check are those that occur in the library unit itself, between the declaration and body of the called subprogram; if there are no such calls (which can easily be detected at compile time if there are no stubs), then no Elaboration_Checks are needed for that subprogram. The same is true for Elaboration_Checks on task activations and instantiations, and for library subprograms and generic units. 
26.c
Ramification: The fact that the unit of elaboration is the library_item means that if a subprogram_body is not a completion, it is impossible for any library_item to be elaborated between the declaration and the body of such a subprogram. Therefore, it is impossible for a call to such a subprogram to fail its Elaboration_Check. 
26.d
Discussion: The visibility rules imply that each library_unit_name of a pragma Elaborate or Elaborate_All has to denote a library unit mentioned by a previous with_clause of the same context_clause.
26.e/3
Aspect Description for Elaborate_Body: A given package must have a body, and that body is elaborated immediately after the declaration.
NOTES
27
12  A preelaborated library unit is allowed to have nonpreelaborable children. 
27.a/1
Ramification: {8652/0035} {AI95-00002-01} But generally not nonpreelaborated subunits. (Nonpreelaborated subunits of subprograms are allowed as discussed above.) 
28
13  A library unit that is declared pure is allowed to have impure children. 
28.a/1
Ramification: {8652/0035} {AI95-00002-01} But generally not impure subunits. (Impure subunits of subprograms are allowed as discussed above.) 
28.b
Ramification: Pragma Elaborate is mainly for closely related library units, such as when two package bodies 'with' each other's declarations. In such cases, Elaborate_All sometimes won't work. 

Extensions to Ada 83

28.c
The concepts of preelaborability and purity are new to Ada 95. The Elaborate_All, Elaborate_Body, Preelaborate, and Pure pragmas are new to Ada 95.
28.d
Pragmas Elaborate are allowed to be mixed in with the other things in the context_clause — in Ada 83, they were required to appear last. 

Incompatibilities With Ada 95

28.e/2
{AI95-00366-01} The requirement that a partial view with available stream attributes be externally streamable can cause an incompatibility in rare cases. If there is a limited tagged type declared in a pure package with available attributes, and that type is used to declare a private extension in another pure package, and the full type for the private extension has a component of an explicitly limited record type, a protected type, or a type with access discriminants, then the stream attributes will have to be user-specified in the visible part of the package. That is not a requirement for Ada 95, but this combination seems very unlikely in pure packages. Note that this cannot be an incompatibility for a nonlimited type, as all of the types that are allowed in Ada 95 that would require explicitly defined stream attributes are limited (and thus cannot be used as components in a nonlimited type).
28.f/2
{AI95-00403-01} Amendment Correction: Added wording to cover missing cases for preelaborated generic units. This is incompatible as a preelaborated unit could have used a formal object to initialize a library-level object; that isn't allowed in Ada 2005. But such a unit wouldn't really be preelaborable, and Ada 95 compilers can reject such units (as this is a Binding Interpretation), so such units should be very rare. 

Extensions to Ada 95

28.g/2
{AI95-00161-01} Amendment Correction: The concept of preelaborable initialization and pragma Preelaborable_Initialization are new. These allow more types of objects to be created in preelaborable units, and fix holes in the old rules.
28.h/2
{AI95-00366-01} Access-to-subprogram types and access-to-object types with a Storage_Size of 0 are allowed in pure units. The permission to omit calls was adjusted accordingly (which also fixes a hole in Ada 95, as access parameters are allowed, and changes in the values accessed by them must be taken into account). 

Wording Changes from Ada 95

28.i/2
{AI95-00002-01} Corrigendum: The wording was changed so that subunits of a preelaborated subprogram are also preelaborated.
28.j/2
{AI95-00217-06} Disallowed pragma Elaborate and Elaborate_All for packages that are mentioned in a limited_with_clause.

Incompatibilities With Ada 2005

28.k/3
{AI05-0028-1} Correction: Corrected a serious unintended incompatibility with Ada 95 in the new preelaboration wording — explicit initialization of objects of types that don't have preelaborable initialization was not allowed. Ada 2012 switches back to the Ada 95 rule in these cases. This is unlikely to occur in practice, as it is unlikely that a compiler would have implemented the more restrictive rule (it would fail many ACATS tests if it did).
28.l/3
{AI05-0035-1} Correction: Added an assume-the-worst rule for generic bodies (else they would never be checked for purity) and added the boilerplate so that the entire generic specification is rechecked. Also fixed wording to have consistent handling for subunits for Pure and Preelaborate. An Ada 95 program could have depended on marking a generic pure that was not really pure, although this would defeat the purpose of the categorization and likely cause problems with distributed programs. 

Extensions to Ada 2005

28.m/3
{AI05-0035-1} Correction: Adjusted wording so that a subunit can be pure (it is not a library_item, but it is a compilation unit).
28.n/3
{AI05-0035-1} Correction: Adjusted wording so that the rules for access types only apply to nonderived types (derived types share their storage pool with their parent, so if the parent access type is legal, so is any derived type.)
28.o/3
{AI05-0229-1} Elaborate_Body is now an aspect, so it can be specified by an aspect_specification — although the pragma is still preferred by the Standard.
28.p/3
{AI05-0243-1} Pure and Preelaborate are now aspects, so they can be specified by an aspect_specification — although the pragmas are still preferred by the Standard. 

Wording Changes from Ada 2005

28.q/3
{AI05-0034-1} Correction: Added wording so that a limited view is always treated as pure, no matter what categorization is used for the originating unit. This was undefined in Ada 2005.
28.r/3
{AI05-0028-1} {AI05-0221-1} Correction: Fixed minor issues with preelaborable initialization (PI): null Initialize procedures do not make a type non-PI; formal types with pragma PI can be assumed to have PI; formal extensions are assumed to not have PI; all composite types can have pragma PI (so that the possibility of hidden Initialize routines can be handled); added discriminants of a derived type are not considered in calculating PI.
28.s/3
{AI05-0219-1} Correction: Clarified that the implementation permission to omit pure subprogram calls does not apply if any part of the parameters or any designated object has a part that is immutably limited. The old wording just said "limited type", which can change via visibility and thus isn't appropriate for dynamic semantics permissions. 

Wording Changes from Ada 2012

28.t/4
{AI12-0076-1} Corrigendum: Explicitly stated that modifying a library-level constant in a pure package is erroneous. We don't document this as inconsistent as implementations certainly can still do whatever they were previously doing (no change is required); moreover, this case (and many more) were erroneous in Ada 2005 and before, so we're just restoring the previous semantics. 

Contents   Index   References   Search   Previous   Next 
Ada-Europe Ada 2005 and 2012 Editions sponsored in part by Ada-Europe