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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	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: 2004-01-24 00:17:54 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!newsfeed2.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!proxad.net!wanadoo.fr!not-for-mail
From: Pascal Obry <p.obry@wanadoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor (Was: why ada is so unpopular ?)
Date: 24 Jan 2004 09:17:52 +0100
Organization: Home - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
Message-ID: <uoest69qn.fsf@wanadoo.fr>
References: <bub5n8$kf5$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
 <49cbf610.0401170627.79c3dfe5@posting.google.com>
 <buc87c$8p$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl>
 <slrnc0je79.hlv.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <budjfo$n18$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <budvvf$9al$1@online.de>
 <bue4r7$3n6$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0lddd.2bt.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0nlj3.1jn.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com>
 <slrnc0nncv.4qq.randhol+valid_for_reply_from_news@k-083152.nt.ntnu.no>
 <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <nBdPb.5187$rW5.288435@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <LNOdncWFbKUojpLdRVn-uQ@comcast.com>
 <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com>
 <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com> <401115B7.5020205@noplace.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: avelizy-103-1-5-20.w80-13.abo.wanadoo.fr
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news-reader3.wanadoo.fr 1074932273 16056 80.13.115.20 (24 Jan 2004
 08:17:53 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@wanadoo.fr
NNTP-Posting-Date: 24 Jan 2004 08:17:53 GMT
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2.95
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:4760
Date: 2004-01-24T08:17:53+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com> writes:

> The more I think about it the more I want there to be a conditional
> compilation capability that would allow some unlimited set of logical names

I'm not sure I agree with that. Of course it will be a working solution but
this is not a solution I'd like to see all over the place. Such feature will
just encourage people to create messy code!

I still prefer the one-spec and multiple bodies solution. At least the spec is
target/hardware independent. This means that a good design needs to be
done. Once this is done the selection of the right body depending on the
target/hardware is a matter of configuration management.

The argument saying that this solution make too much code duplication is
wrong. It is perfectly possible to use child package/procedure/function for
the one routine that is target/hardware dependant in whole API.

Pascal.

-- 

--|------------------------------------------------------
--| Pascal Obry                           Team-Ada Member
--| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE
--|------------------------------------------------------
--|         http://perso.wanadoo.fr/pascal.obry
--| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination"
--|
--| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595