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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-27 13:48:22 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!news-in.mts.net!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor References: <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com> <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com> <401115B7.5020205@noplace.com> <101djamfnrb185a@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <101djamfnrb185a@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:41:50 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1075239658 198.96.223.163 (Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:40:58 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:40:58 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4938 Date: 2004-01-27T16:41:50-05:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" 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