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: 103376,4b807da453e88972
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Function Pointers
Date: 1998/04/15
Message-ID: <dewar.892641366@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 344276471
References: <353257CC.211B84EE@phaseiv.com>
 <ErEsxx.9F@jvdsys.nextjk.stuyts.nl>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 892641661 21718 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-04-15T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Jerry said

<<-- As GNAT allows only one compilation unit in a file
--  we nest the functions within main;
>>

Surely a bad reason for doing anything. It is bad practice (see for example
AQ&S) generally to put more than one compilation unit in a file anyway.

But the issue of whether to write a single compilation unit or many
compilation units is surely a design issue that should not be affected
by low level representation issues (i.e. how compilation units are 
represented in files, whether you want to use gnatchop if you are using
GNAT etc.)