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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6161bc9aa025a9a3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Subunits of packages vs. subunits of subprograms Date: 1996/07/11 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 167939162 references: <31E534FE.12370608@jinx.sckans.edu> organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-11T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: David Morton said "Basically, it seems now that the separate keyword's function is to break down a lenthy file into many small ones, mainly for easier reading, not to speed up developement or help the concept of separate compilation. I think I understand the reasons for it being this way, but although it does meet the letter of the RM, it does seem to violate the spirit of separate compilation. Oh well, it's *not* that big a deal..." You realize of course that subunits are, in many instances, obsoleted by the notion of child units. Most, but not all, uses of subunits in Ada 83 are more comfortably replaced by the use of child units in Ada 95. So to a certain extent subunits are being provided for backwards compatibility.