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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: File name conventions for Ada units
Message-ID: <2152@enea.se>
Date: 2 Oct 90 21:55:39 GMT
References: <589@censun1.UUCP> <2190@sparko.gwu.edu>
Organization: Enea Data AB, Sweden
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Michael Feldman (mfeldman@seas.gwu.edu) writes:
>I would go further and use .ads for a spec, .adb for a body, .ada for a
>main, and maybe .sub or whatever for a subunit. Why there are compilers, in
>this day and age, that limit file types to some predetermined value, is
>absolutely beyond me. At most there should be a default which can always
>be overridden.

I can only agree. I don't if it has anything to with the O/S, but
it seems like every Unix compiler I have met, not only Ada compilers,
has some suffix you must use - and provide each time. Coming from
the VMS world I find this strange. The normal file type for Ada
files is .ADA, and if you use it you have to tell that to the
compiler, but if you prefer .FOR you can do so.

I guess it is some old Unix conventions hiding here. (And since it
is Unix, it must be good. :-))
-- 
Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se
"Nelly Nilsson n|jer sig numera n{ppeligen med nio n|tter till natten"