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=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-23 14:31:28 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news-out.visi.com!petbe.visi.com!newsfeeds-atl2!c03.atl99!sjc70.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!corp.supernews.com!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:30:34 -0600
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Message-ID: <10138603kq87jb4@corp.supernews.com>
References: <bub5n8$kf5$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
 <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com>
 <buc87c$8p$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
 <slrnc0je79.hlv.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <budjfo$n18$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <budvvf$9al$1@online.de>
 <bue4r7$3n6$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0lddd.2bt.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0nlj3.1jn.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0nncv.4qq.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <nBdPb.5187$rW5.288435@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <LNOdncWFbKUojpLdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>
 <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com>
 <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com>
 <PMcQb.20017$cQ6.818801@news20.bellglobal.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4744
Date: 2004-01-23T16:30:34-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote in message
news:PMcQb.20017$cQ6.818801@news20.bellglobal.com...
> How do you solve the issues involved with different curses
> libraries?
>
>   - UNIX/*BSD curses library?
>   - GNU/Linux curses library?
>   - PDcurses?

You use a thick curses binding, of course. And if the bodies need to be
different, then there are different bodies. So what?

There are a number of parts of Claw that have different bodies (and in a few
cases, specs of private packages) for different compilers. It would be nice
if there was an automated way to keep the common parts of those in sync, but
that's a tools issue, not a language issue.

Similarly, the bodies for Claw-less sockets will be completely different
between the Windows version and the GNAT sockets version (and I think, the
Linux version, if we ever do that). (This is closer to your situation.)
There isn't much point in trying to share the code; far too little can be
shared. Conditional compilation only makes sense when you can share large
parts of the code -- but in those cases, careful use of subunits can again
put the differences all into a single body that might as well be handled
separately.

                   Randy.