Re: Suggestion for gnatstub

["Marin David Condic" <mcondic.auntie.spam@acm.org>]

Actually, I dislike gnatstub because it doesn't generate null functions. I
often want the stubs to be executable so I can test higher level code and do
iterative builds. ("O.K. I got *this* function working right, now lets go
build the next one..." Saves on having to build test harnesses.) I'd imagine
it would be fairly straightforward to include an option that let the user
select the desired behavior - raise exceptions or generate working code.

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]
======================================================================

Marc A. Criley <mcq95@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3DCBC4C9.AD436CD9@earthlink.net...
>
> Making such a suggestion in comp.lang.ada will have zero effect, as few
> ACT personnel peruse this newsgroup with any regularity.  And as Robert
> Dewar was wont to say, "We don't take suggestions from public
> newsgroups!"
>
> Anyway, the gnatstub sources are readily available, modify it to
> generate the output you desire.
>
> (I do think it would be useful to have gnatstub operate as you suggest,
> though perhaps make it selectable via a command-line switch, e.g.,
> -gnatharsh.)
>