Re: The Dreaded "Missing Subunits"

[Stephen Leake <stephen.a.leake.1@gsfc.nasa.gov>]

Dmitry A.Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> Preben Randhol wrote:
> > Come on what is so nasty with .adb .ads?
> 
> Not so nasty if you start a new project. But I remember how it took two 
> days or so to rename all files while porting a project from DEC Ada to 
> GNAT. It was not only file extensions. For the sake of portability all 
> files names were 8-letters long. Well, it appeared a little bit less 
> portable than we expected! (:-))

gnatchop would solve that problem easily; perhaps it was not available
then.

It would be nice if every vendor provided a similar tool; "take this
collection of randomly named files and name them according to your
convention". 

> > Besides don't you get the with-ing problem with .ada?

Depends on wether the spec and body are both in one file, or you still
have two files, just both ending in .ada.

If you have two files, then you still need some convention to
distinguish the body from the spec; hence Rationals foo.1.ada,
foo.2.ada.

If you have one file, you lose the separate compilation of spec and
body. You don't get horrible "withing" problems (Ada is still the same
language), you just get horrible recompilation times (you recompile
the spec and everything that depends on it, every time you change the
body).

> Why? It worked with Ada 83, why shouldn't it with Ada 95.

In Ada 83 you still needed different file names for the spec and body.
The convention I used with DEC 83 (if I recall correctly) was
foo_s.ada for the spec, and foo.ada for the body. I much prefer
foo.ads, foo.adb.

You could put both spec and body in one file, but you got the same
horrible recompilation issues.

-- 
-- Stephe