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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4c019ad9cc913bbe X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-09-19 04:27:26 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits" Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 07:26:46 -0400 Organization: MindSpring Enterprises Message-ID: References: <1b585154.0209121449.ef12609@posting.google.com> <3D819EE7.3A69E5EB@praxis-cs.co.uk> <4519e058.0209160548.461cef27@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d1.56.a0.79 X-Server-Date: 19 Sep 2002 11:27:26 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:29164 Date: 2002-09-19T11:27:26+00:00 List-Id: Here's a better idea than a file extension convention: Why not have all Ada compilers allow the user to specify what the convention is for their project? Most of the compilers I've seen have some ability already to store configuration or initialization information in some manner. If its a command-line compiler (id est, Gnat) it could be a switch set by the IDE or there can be some special file for a project that identifies the convention as well as other useful initialization & option stuff. It may be handy from some kind of portability perspective or user recognition perspective if everyone used the same filename extension to mean the same thing, but I don't think its that necessary. An OS might not even make much or any use of the extension to begin with, so for a given implementation, it might not make much sense anyway. If the world can agree on what the file name convention should be, fine. If not, the vendors need only provide some reasonably easy means of specifying what the convention is for a project and most of the problems go away. MDC -- ====================================================================== Marin David Condic I work for: http://www.belcan.com/ My project is: http://www.jast.mil/ Send Replies To: m c o n d i c @ a c m . o r g "I'd trade it all for just a little more" -- Charles Montgomery Burns, [4F10] ====================================================================== Robert A Duff wrote in message news:wccptvb9fv1.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com... > > Contrast with Ada, where GNAT wants .ads/.adb, Rational wants > .1.ada/.2.ada, and AdaMagic wants .spc/.bdy. I know GNAT and AdaMagic > have ways of overriding the convention (not sure about Rational), > but you have to go to extra trouble to use a convention different > from what the compiler wants. Wouldn't it be better if all Ada > compilers supported the same file-naming conventions out of the box, > without using nonstandard pragmas Source_File_Name and the like? > > What file-naming convention should I use, if I want to be > portable across all compilers? For C, the answer is easy. > For Ada, it's not. >