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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-28 18:45:36 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!news.completel.fr!ciril.fr!univ-angers.fr!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 05:51:33 +0300 (MSK) Organization: h w c employees, b f Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1075343852 75315 80.67.180.195 (29 Jan 2004 02:37:32 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 02:37:32 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: ; from "Robert I. Eachus" at Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:26:38 -0500 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5023 Date: 2004-01-29T05:51:33+03:00 Robert I. Eachus wrote: > I don't know if you consider SQL, XML, and HTML as a programming > languages, Well, 3 different answers for them: 1) HTML is not a programming language, and any attempt to make it a programming language is fundamentally wrong; 2) SQL is controversial thing. Personally I don't see it as a programming language, on similar ground as for RPG. Both are too fixed on purpose (this and goal-orientation are different things). 3) about XML I'm still not sure. From its popular presentation it does not seem a programming language; but SAX somehow changes the picture. Probably the decisive feature is DTD, but it is not clear (at least for me) *what* is (or may be) programmed within a DTD, and to which limits. > 2) There is no need for a STANDARD Ada pre-processor, because most of > the need for that sort of thing in Ada is better done in Ada. I'd > rather spend my efforts in the standards area on making Ada a 99% > solution instead of a 90% solution. Ok, but there is one thing, which was mentioned by many in this thread (and perhaps by you also): the need to have multiple bodies for a package and to choose between them according to particular configuration. This need certainly does not require preprocessor, but perhaps it will be good to add some standard language construct for that - which communicates to a compiler the fact that the body of particular package must be picked from non-standard place. Nothing more than that - all other information (compiler option formats etc.) need not and cannot be standardized. Something like pragma Remote_Body; >>From other side, I wonder, why - if something like this is really needed - it was not already added to existing compilers as an implementation-defined feature. Or it was? Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia