Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"

[Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

Preben Randhol wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Sep 2002 23:49:06 +0200, Dmitry A.Kazakov wrote:

>> Can somebody explain why those nasty .ads/.adb appeared? Is that a big
>> deal to detect the word "body" in the source code? Why files cannot be
>> just .ada? If I wish to separate specifications and bodies, well, since
>> RSX-11M all operating systems have subfolders...
> 
> Come on what is so nasty with .adb .ads?

Not so nasty if you start a new project. But I remember how it took two 
days or so to rename all files while porting a project from DEC Ada to 
GNAT. It was not only file extensions. For the sake of portability all 
files names were 8-letters long. Well, it appeared a little bit less 
portable than we expected! (:-))

> I find it easier to read .ads
> files in order to see which functions/procedures the package provides.
> If you have a .ada file you will have to jump up and down a lot.

True, but in a medium-sized project it becomes either disastrous. Good 
navigation tools and IDE are indispensable. 

> Besides don't you get the with-ing problem with .ada?

Why? It worked with Ada 83, why shouldn't it with Ada 95.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de