Re: Should Inline be private in the private part of a package spec?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 20.08.12 16:15, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Sorry, but diffusing the issue won't help you justify XML,

It is not my intent to justify XML or not.
My intent is simply to say that perceptions like that of
heterogeneity may influence the decision to ask for XML,
and justifiably so.
This has happened, for example in ways you have listed.

Related Example that has been part of this discussion,
and concern compiler configuration files:

A software program to be built comprises, among other things,
four projects.
Three of them are written in Ada, one is written in C++.
Two use GNAT, one uses Janus/Ada, and the fourth uses Visual C++.
Every now and then, the teams need to cooperate to produce one
executable from the libraries that each team will have built.

Let each team need to support three scenarios:
Development, Integration/Testing, Production.

Management says: "Switch to Integration/Testing this afternoon!"

What then happens is that each team changes their tool chain's
setup. Each team does so in a different way, so as to make the
different compilers run as required for Integration/Testing.
Heterogeneity.

Suppose that the entire project does not need any switch mania but
is fine when the respective switches are the same for all units,
and are the equivalents of
 -O -g -gnatwa -gnata
for Integration/Testing.

Switching scenarios is totally mechanical, ready for automatization.
What can be done to make this kind of automatic control of very
different compilers possible?