Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"

[Emmanuel Briot <briot@act-europe.fr>]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:

> >...Have a look in the documentation at pragma
> > Source_File_Name, which provides handling for any possible naming scheme you
> > can conceive.
> 
> This is also of course wrong.  The patterns supported by the pragma are
> fairly limited, but I can "conceive" of many things.  For example, if
> you want to put all main procedures in files with a certain pattern, it
> doesn't really work.


Have a look at the more recent versions of GNAT (I don't know if the full
support was already in 3.14p or was added later, although I think it was
already there in 3.14p) for the project files.

Also have a look at pragma Source_File_Name, where you associate a unit name
with *any* file name you want. There is no notion of naming scheme, since you
can use a different one for each unit and even for specs and bodies for a given
unit.

Of course, it used to be a pain to generate these pragma Source_File_Name by
hand. There is now a tool called gnatname that will scan your source
directories to generate the pragmas directly.

So any naming scheme is supported, and yes, this is a challenge :-)