From: NiGHTS <nights@unku.us>
Subject: Re: Code organization
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 08:01:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: 2018-09-27T08:01:09-07:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <100214be-3866-4dd1-a8dd-c26ce97b52e3@googlegroups.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6632bf33-17aa-46f8-9ef7-f6e025eab3a4@googlegroups.com>
On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 10:43:49 AM UTC-4, Shark8 wrote:
> On Thursday, September 27, 2018 at 8:24:48 AM UTC-6, NiGHTS wrote:
> >
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> Organizationally, I've been able to leverage SEPARATE and nested packages to a fairly decent effect.
>
> As for the particular problem of the nested-task I don't think that would work, although you /could/ make a generic package off of that internal task, using IN OUT formal parameters for the dependent state you're relying on... though I'm not sure that would make things easier, per se.
I had actually not used "separate" before. I read up on it and it's interesting.
Does this only work on procedures declared in the package spec or can it work for procedures declared in the body of another procedure or task?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-09-27 15:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-27 14:24 Code organization NiGHTS
2018-09-27 14:43 ` Shark8
2018-09-27 15:01 ` NiGHTS [this message]
2018-09-27 15:33 ` NiGHTS
2018-09-27 14:48 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-09-27 15:09 ` NiGHTS
2018-09-27 19:49 ` Jeffrey R. Carter
2018-09-27 20:46 ` Brian Drummond
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox