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=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	PLING_QUERY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,329032975b221f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-12 18:15:17 PST
Path: 
 bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!swiss.ans.net!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Q: common types?!
Date: 12 Oct 1994 17:37:46 -0400
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <37hkva$dc@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <36c1c0$lve@pong.lasc.lockheed.com>
 <36taod$3o5@brisbane.celsius.oz.au>
 <1994Oct12.123948.1@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1994-10-12T17:37:46-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

The argument that the common types package will be frequently changed and
frequently withed AND THEREFORE cause the whole system to be recompiled
is bogus.

Whether or not this occurs is a characteristic of your implementation. If
you are using an incremental system like Dec or Rational, adding declarations
to a common types package will not cause you to have to recompile any
existing clients.

This might happen in some systems, and needs to be considered, but it is
wrong to assume it is true as a matter of course.

P.S. GNAT currently does not have smart recompilation (probably a bvetter
phrase than incremental system that I used above), but there is an interesting
paper being given at Tri-Ada which will describe a smart recompilation
system being built for use with GNAT.