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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,47645c013367a8d6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kilgallen@eisner.decus.org (Larry Kilgallen) Subject: Re: Text control characters Date: 1997/09/15 Message-ID: <1997Sep15.064923.1@eisner>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 272599864 References: <5v9vj1$dge$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> X-Nntp-Posting-Host: eisner.decus.org X-Trace: news.decus.org 874320574 8872 KILGALLEN [192.67.173.2] Organization: LJK Software Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-09-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article <5v9vj1$dge$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>, > Dale Stanbrough wrote: >>Thinking about it, the preprocessor selection of a with statement >>would seem to be a fairly benign use of preprocessors. Can anyone see >>any great harm in this scheme? > > To me, it seems better than putting various hacks in your make files or > shell scripts or whatever. Or, at least, it *would* seem better, if > there were a standard preprocessor for Ada, defined by the language. Ok, so we are talking about an environment in which one has the choice of building objects for an operating system called Unix or for a totally distinct operating system (potentially also called Unix :-). The result will be bits which will not execute correctly in the "other" environment, so one is already depending on variations in the build mechanism to put the output in one place or the other depending on the target. What is wrong with also having the build mechanism pull the "os-specific" package from one place or the other depending on the target. Larry Kilgallen