Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations.....

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@acm.org> wrote in message
news:mailman.11.1070584255.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
>
> > "Stephen Leake" <stephen_leake@acm.org> wrote in message
> > news:mailman.8.1070543384.31149.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org...
> > > > Then, do not you feel that packing everything in one directory is
> > > > similar to packing all packages in one huge all_stuff.ada file?
> > >
> > > Since the Ada compiler treats compilation units in one file much
> > > differently than compilation units in separate files, but cares not at
> > > all about what directories things are in, these are very different
issues.
> >
> > That's a mis-feature of a particular Ada implementation, one that
follows
> > the "letter" of the standard but not the spirit. So far as I know, all
other
> > Ada compilers directly support compiling files containing multiple
units.
>
> Well, yes, GNAT refuses to compile a file containing multiple units.
> But even in other systems, the re-compilation dependencies get
> confused when there are more than one unit in a file (which is why
> GNAT refuses to do it); it is that effect I was talking about.

'fraid I don't follow. Certainly it is possible to compile more than you
need to in that way, but if compilation is fast enough, that's not really an
issue. If the units are completely out of order, you'll have trouble, but
that hardly is surprising. But the make tools work (I know ours does), and
it works well to put a number of specs in the same file. For instance, in
Claw, there are a number of packages that we had to move in the hierarchy.
The spec file then also contains a rename of the package to its original
name. It would hardly make sense to give a one line item its own source
file, with all of the configuration management/standard comments like
copyrights that that entails - the result would be pretty large and it would
be hard to find the actual code. :-)

                   Randy.