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: 103376,6a9844368dd0a842
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: smize@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Samuel Mize)
Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat?
Date: 1996/07/02
Message-ID: <4rckva$dj1@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 163397565
references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu>
organization: NeoSoft, Inc. +1 713 968 5800
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu>,
David Morton  <dmorton@jinx.sckans.edu> wrote:
>I've been working with John Herro's AdaTutor
>program on Linux, and gnat.
>
>He uses the keyword seperate a lot, to make the assignment 
>procedure in a seperate file, ie,
>
>in file foo.adb  (the test file)
>procedure bar is seperate;
>
>then in file foo-bar.adb
>
>seperate(foo) (the assignment file)
>procedure bar is
>...
>
>He argues that the file foo.adb should be able to be compiled,
>seperately, since the specification is there, even though the actual
>procedure body has not been written.  I'm inclined to believe that he's right,

He's certainly right (at least for Ada83, and I *think* for Ada95)
(unless he's actually spelling it "seperate" in the code).


>but gnat refuses to cleanly compile unless the file foo-bar.adb exists.

The parent unit should compile (but not link).  Might your gnat set-up
be automatically trying to link?  (Just a wild guess.)

Since I haven't seen this mentioned on comp.lang.ada, I assume it
isn't a problem with gnat itself.

Samuel Mize