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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Tucker's new proposal
Message-ID: <7518@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 22 Dec 89 20:39:12 GMT
References: <20600028@inmet>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From stt@inmet.inmet.com:
> I *can* imagine a careful definition of conditional
> compilation mechanisms which would preserve the ability to
> recompile from parse trees.  This would *not* be a preprocessor
> approach, however.  [...] 
%
%    Allow if constructs and case constructs within a sequence of
%    declarations, so long as all conditional and case
%    expressions are static, and each if/case "arm" contains
%    only declarations (rather than statements).
% 
> The nice thing about this kind of approach is that it builds on the
> existing concepts of the language (namely static expressions,
> if/case constructs, and variant records), rather than introducing
> a new/foreign syntax like "#ifdef".  

   I must be getting a bit too much of the spiked eggnog myself,
   because this is actually starting to sound like not too bad an
   idea...  can anyone think of counterarguments?  


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu