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=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 2002:a02:84e6:: with SMTP id f93mr18927669jai.73.1559590167924;
        Mon, 03 Jun 2019 12:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aca:ba56:: with SMTP id k83mr91283oif.7.1559590167708;
 Mon, 03 Jun 2019 12:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!4no50845itm.0!news-out.google.com!l135ni33itc.0!nntp.google.com!4no50842itm.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2019 12:29:27 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qd3jn6$kn8$1@dont-email.me>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=2601:3c3:401:f550:fb:deb7:d346:48a7;
 posting-account=JSxOkAoAAADa00TJoz2WZ_46XrZCdXeS
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2601:3c3:401:f550:fb:deb7:d346:48a7
References: <28facad3-c55f-4ef2-8ef8-004925b7d1f1@googlegroups.com>
 <qd3jn6$kn8$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <1b5c8e3b-6443-4c4f-ad86-f655092c440d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Why .ads as well as .adb?
From: John Perry <john.perry@usm.edu>
Injection-Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2019 19:29:27 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:56448
Date: 2019-06-03T12:29:27-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, June 3, 2019 at 12:00:24 PM UTC-5, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:
> On 6/2/19 2:48 AM, John Perry wrote:
> >=20
> > As far as I can tell, though, Ada has stuck with the two separate files=
, rather than, say, generating an .ads from an .adb with export markup.
> >=20
> > Is there a reason Ada hasn't moved to this simpler structure?
>=20
> First, let me point out that your specification is GNAT-specific, but you=
r body=20
> is compiler-independent. I'm going to presume that the generation of the =
spec=20
> from the body was faulty.

I'm not sure what you mean, but you & Nicholas have made me aware that the =
premises of my question are not entirely well-founded, in that I'm basing t=
hem on my experience with gnat, since I don't really have access to another=
 Ada compiler (to my knowledge). I do recall reading that gnat has a partic=
ular addition to the requirements that every file contain only one compilat=
ion unit, so spec & impl need to be in separate files.

> Note that gnatchop does not generate specifications from bodies, and the =
example=20
> does not show that. It shows an input file containing 2 compilation units=
, a=20
> spec and a body. gnatchop produces a single file for each compilation uni=
t in=20
> its input.

That was indeed a poorly thought out reply of mine; thank you.

john perry