Re: GNAT GPL is proving...educational

[Alan Jump <alan.jump@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the input. However, these questions were answered earlier.

 - -
73 de N5ILN
Alan

On Thursday, August 1, 2013 8:07:58 AM UTC-7, Stephen Leake wrote:
> Alan Jump <alan.jump@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> 
> 
> > On Sunday, July 21, 2013 8:26:10 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Carter wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> >> Stacks.Vector is a child package; its parent is package Stacks. Package Stacks 
> 
> >> must exist to have child packages.
> 
> >
> 
> > Tried it. Didn't work. GNAT responded "stacks.vector.ads language
> 
> > unknown". 
> 
> 
> 
> Try again, more carefully. The file name should be "stacks-vector.ads".
> 
> 
> 
> Slow down, read the manual, be careful. Ada does work, GNAT does work;
> 
> there are millions of lines of code out there proving it.
> 
> 
> 
> > I don't mind this at all. Especially with the option to generate body
> 
> > stubs from spec files. It works to make sure the body I write meets
> 
> > the spec I write. I wish Java had been that strict when I was learning
> 
> > that language; it would have saved me many hours of debugging, not to
> 
> > mention avoiding more than a few platefuls of spaghetti code. All I'm
> 
> > pointing out here is that it's forcing a shift in thinking about how I
> 
> > draft both specs and bodies, and that's a Very Good Thing(tm).
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you seem to have missed that it does support parent and
> 
> child packages, which is a very important feature.
> 
> 
> 
> >> GNAT also requires one compilation unit per source file, but this again is not 
> 
> >> something defined by the language, and many compilers will accept files 
> 
> >> containing multiple compilation units. Many experienced Ada software engineers 
> 
> >> find having a single compilation unit per file a good idea.
> 
> >
> 
> > Here's another neophyte question, then...are specs and bodies
> 
> > considered separate compilation units? 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> -- Stephe