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,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!decwrl!shelby!agate!ucbvax!community-chest.mitre.org!munck
From: munck@community-chest.mitre.org (Bob Munck)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: 9X and the NEED for preprocessing
Message-ID: <1825.629648260@chance>
Date: 14 Dec 89 14:17:40 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: munck@mwunix.mitre.org
Organization: The Internet
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dave Emery is essentially raising an interesting question sequence:

IF the use of preprocessors for Ada code is at all wide-spread THEN

   ASSUME uncontrolled use of random preprocessors is not in
          agreement with the general principles of Ada use;

   IF the things being done with preprocessors can 
      be done easily and understandably in legal Ada THEN

      Write a note/article/book describing the problems being solved
      with preprocessors and the way they should be solved with Ada;

   ELSE

      IF some set of Ada-9X revision suggestions 
         would make it possible to do so in Ada-9X THEN

         List them and describe how they solve the problem;

      ELSE

         ASSUME the Ada-9X revision submission period is over;
         Suggest that we have a problem

      END IF
   END IF
END IF

(My apologies for the cutesy if-then-else format.)  I think it's likely
that the result of "running the program" is to suggest that we have a 
problem, but I'm not at all familiar with the submitted suggestions.

                                  -- Bob Munck, MITRE McLean