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,d78ba5da4a579fd8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Chris Morgan Subject: Re: Filename for packages? Date: 1998/10/04 Message-ID: <87hfxkh4l4.fsf@mihalis.ix.netcom.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 397592475 Sender: cm@mihalis.ix.netcom.com References: <36176A49.2D6C05CA@phoenix.net> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited X-NETCOM-Date: Sun Oct 04 5:51:00 AM PDT 1998 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-10-04T05:51:00-07:00 List-Id: Renwick Preston writes: > I just started looking into Ada and I'm unsure how to name my > files. Should the package specification filename end with a .ads and > the body a .adb? Yes, that's a good way to do it. >I can't find that information in the book Ada 95... by Feldman. Actually you can call them anything you like. You can even put the whole program in one file if you like. Prof Feldman's book isn't compiler specific (which is the right decision IMHO). However should you wish to try out the GNU Ada compiler (GNAT) you will find it convenient to use the naming scheme expected by default by that compiler. What I used to do, rather than worry about it, was write the code and then get the compiler to chop up my code into the correctly names files using the gnatchop tool - see the (excellent) GNAT documentation if interested. Personally I see no reason not to use this naming scheme whatever Ada compiler you intend to use, it just makes things simpler IMHO. Cheers, Chris -- Chris Morgan http://www.netcom.com/~mihalis