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:KVARb.52238$Kg6.385745@news20.bellglobal.com...
>>Randy Brukardt wrote:
> ....
>>>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?
> 
> Updating the Ada standard is as much a political process as it is a
> technical one. In this case, I and others tried to get a solution added to
> Ada 95. There was too much opposition at that time. Given that nothing has
> changed, I'd expect the same result if the same solutions are presented.
> Indeed, we have a meta-rule that we won't even waste time on issues decided
> during Ada 95's development unless there is significant new information.
> (The few that have come up, like 'in out' for functions, have ended up with
> precisely the same results as the last time - even with new information.)

I can only agree with this. Please understand, that this was
not a discussion that "we should include X in 200Y". That is
too much further down the road. The discussion stemmed from
the wider context of "Why is Ada Unpopular?"  I then wanted
to discuss the merits of addressing conditional compilation.

To say that it was ready for a proposal, would be naive ;-)

But the discussion here was useful. In my mind, unless
the general concensous changes, there does not seem to be
an acceptable solution to the majority on this topic.
But as I said in another post, it was interesting to
note from others that agreed there was a need to be
addressed there.

> The only new information that I could think of that would help here would be
> an elegant solution. Certainly, the fact that the problem exists - or its
> scope - haven't changed a bit in the last 12 years. 

To this I was only suggesting that if an elegant solution
does not emerge in 12-20 years, then perhaps there is
none. And if this is the conclusion, then perhaps it is
time to lower the "standard" a bit, to address practical
needs.

 > I'm going to spend my
> time on issues that have a chance to be approved (like a limited containers
> library), not tilting at windmills. (I've done enough of that in the last
> couple of years.)
> 
> Otherwise, you'll get have to use a non-standard solution like Gnatprep.
> 
>                 Randy.

A sensible thing to do. ;-)
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk