Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor

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

"Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote in message
news:KVARb.52238$Kg6.385745@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Randy Brukardt wrote:
...
> > I couldn't disagree. Now, try to figure out a natural way to express
such
> > conditional compilation in Ada. I can't (and I've tried to solve this
> > problem for 20 years.) If you don't have a non-ugly way to solve the
> > problem, the chances of anything being done about it are zero.
>
> I agree that an elegant solution should always be sought.
> Especially if you are looking at the far reaching consequences
> of "language changes".  But if this problem has existed for
> 20 years and no solution has come to light, then maybe it
> is time to consider a less elegant solution?

Updating the Ada standard is as much a political process as it is a
technical one. In this case, I and others tried to get a solution added to
Ada 95. There was too much opposition at that time. Given that nothing has
changed, I'd expect the same result if the same solutions are presented.
Indeed, we have a meta-rule that we won't even waste time on issues decided
during Ada 95's development unless there is significant new information.
(The few that have come up, like 'in out' for functions, have ended up with
precisely the same results as the last time - even with new information.)

The only new information that I could think of that would help here would be
an elegant solution. Certainly, the fact that the problem exists - or its
scope - haven't changed a bit in the last 12 years. I'm going to spend my
time on issues that have a chance to be approved (like a limited containers
library), not tilting at windmills. (I've done enough of that in the last
couple of years.)

Otherwise, you'll get have to use a non-standard solution like Gnatprep.

                Randy.