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: jsa@organon.com (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: seperate keyword and seperate compilation with Gnat? Date: 1996/07/09 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167474656 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <31D95D93.28D8D15B@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) writes: > In article , Robert Dewar wrote: > >Anyway, it would really be interesting to here if there are interesting > >examples of large type 2 cases which would make it worth fixing at least > >this subunit case to do "true" separate compilation. > > I suspect that most subunits are subprograms, and their parents are most > often packages. That's true of most code I've seen, and code I've > written myself. I'll second that! > On the other hand, I'm pretty happy with GNAT subunit handling as it is, > since I'm pretty happy to use child units instead. What can subunits do > that child units can't? Well, a subunit can see stuff in the parent's And this too. I think GNAT is just fine on this issue the way it is. A year or so ago, when I first came across it, I thought it might be a big deal. But I was wrong - it just isn't. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com