Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk>]

Randy Brukardt wrote:
> "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <warren@ve3wwg.tk> wrote in message
> news:ZwxRb.49242$Kg6.360396@news20.bellglobal.com...
> ....
>>I hate this. Conditional compilation would be a better
>>solution for the developer because it is less error prone,
>>and it is more natural.
> 
> I couldn't disagree. Now, try to figure out a natural way to express such
> conditional compilation in Ada. I can't (and I've tried to solve this
> problem for 20 years.) If you don't have a non-ugly way to solve the
> problem, the chances of anything being done about it are zero.

I agree that an elegant solution should always be sought.
Especially if you are looking at the far reaching consequences
of "language changes".  But if this problem has existed for
20 years and no solution has come to light, then maybe it
is time to consider a less elegant solution?

> But without a workable solution, there can be no new feature. (And, because
> not everyone finds this necessary, the solution needs to be clean and
> well-integrated into the rest of the language.)
> 
>                     Randy.

I don't think it is a matter of "no solution exists". It is a
matter of "elegancy" as you have already stated. No one here
has come out and said "it won't work". There are simply biases
against the approaches, which vary from "Ada doesn't do it that
way" to "it's ugly". But solutions do exist.

To satisfy both camps, I would make the use of such a feature
something you have to enable (by compile option). Then by
default, you would get what you have always had.

The objection of course is that if some developers start to use
it, then someday you might have to maintain code that uses it.
But for shops that can mandate tools and conventions, you can
mandate against its use anyway. This brings us back to a matter
of preference.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk