Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?)

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

Robert I. Eachus wrote:

> Warren W. Gay VE3WWG wrote:
...
>> Can we agree on having a choice at least?
> 
> Sure, you have that choice.  There are several good pre-processors for 
> Ada.  Go, get one, use it.  

I've been using one for quite some time. But remember,
the request was for a *standard* one. ;-)

> Pretty soon you will join Randy and I on the 
> other side of the fence.  

Until systems start all looking the same (not likely),
and userland APIs (shared libraries) all start being
consistent (there will always be different versions),
I'll always have to be adapting Ada code to these
messy differences. Until the day comes when I don't
need to write bindings to C and C++ code, I'll
always be using gnatprep, as I have from the beginning.

Until I get Ada bindings for all the C stuff out there,
I will always be in need for "conditional compilation".
Read my lips ;-)

> Don't get me wrong, the GNAT pre-processor 
> facilities are great, much better than cpp.  But when you really try to 
> use it you end up in self protection migrating as much pre-processor 
> stuff as possible into one unit.  Then once you start planning out the 
> code you want for some change to that unit, then figuring out where to 
> stick it in the middle of all the preprocessor directives, you will 
> agree that multiple bodies are easier to maintain. ;-)
> 
> (Incidently, there is an intermediate position you go through, and which 
>  works nicely for some units.  The bodies of subprograms in the unit 
> each turns into a case statement on the processor or compiler.  But when 
> I reach that point, I use Ada instead of the pre-processor for the case 
> statements.)

I am _not_ saying that gnatprep _is_ the solution. But some
carefully designed conditional compilation needs to be
considered. It should be available and optional.

That is all.

-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://ve3wwg.tk