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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!ncar!mephisto!mcnc!rti!sunpix!keith
From: keith@sunpix.UUCP ( Sun Visualization Products)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: re: conditional compilation
Keywords: conditional compilation
Message-ID: <1033@jetcomp.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 89 20:07:27 GMT
References: <8912120008.AA19332@mbunix.mitre.org> <7403@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Reply-To: keith@jetcomp.UUCP (Keith Harp - Sun Visualization Products)
Distribution: na
Organization: Sun Microsystems, RTP, NC
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7403@hubcap.clemson.edu> billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu writes:
>    
>   Conditional compilation would introduce an entirely new mechanism;
>   such a move must be justified in terms of benefits which cannot
>   reasonably be obtained using existing mechanisms.  The situations 
>   cited thus far do not appear to satisfy this requirement.  

As of this  reply to dave emery, you still haven't dealt with the fact 
(brought out by dave and myself) that your proposed construct (using 
a component named Y twice) is illegal.   
 
I generally respect your views, but in this case, I think the fact 
of the matter is that people are already using preprocessors.  Standardizing 
to some syntax would simply make it easier to integrate the true source code 
with smart editors, debuggers, etc.