Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"

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

Preben Randhol wrote:

> Anyway I still think it is clearer to have the .ads files for looking at
> what a package provides. Besides you should also put your documentation
> here that has to do with the usage of the procedures/functions. As to
> big systems, do the packages become huge too or is it only that there a
> lot of them?

There are many packages. Then if the software has to be portable, some of 
them have many platform-dependent bodies ("second axis"). Then there are 
packages providing abstract base types user-derived ones. The packages 
implementing that user-derived types ("third axis") multiply like flies 
(:-)). It is simply impossible to keep all that exploding stuff in one 
folder. But when you start to use subfolders then it is usually better to 
have one folder tree for specifications and another for implementations. So 
the file names never clash.

For beginners and in classes it is easier to have an ability to put several 
compilation units in one file. Later on one can explain students that it is 
a bad praxis. (:-))

Maybe .ads, .adb are not so bad, I just suspect that they can much help 
in solving code management problems.

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