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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,aea4cc77526f5e4a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public,usenet X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!out02b.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in04.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: Separate Compilation in Programming Languages Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 20:11:19 +0100 Message-ID: <19aoco1bwcscs$.v4o2kd01gbw6.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Feb 2008 20:11:21 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: d458405a.newsspool2.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=QKA2 On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 17:35:33 GMT, adaworks@sbcglobal.net wrote: > What > is your view of Ada-style separate compilation when compared to that in other > languages? It is the best I know, but still problematic when it comes to DLLs and distributed stuff. > Do you find it useful in your own practice? Do you still use the "is separate" > feature in a package body? I do but not very often. One problem is that GNAT's implementation of is quite intolerant to errors in separate bodies. So you cannot have an independent design - compile loop for them. Splitting things into smaller filers after having designed them is no more actual in these days of IDEs. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de