Re: with and use again (was: Manifesto against Vector)

[Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> On Thu, 6 May 2004 10:55:01 +0100, Marius Amado Alves
> <maa@liacc.up.pt> wrote:
> 
>>On Thursday 06 May 2004 10:29, Dmitry A.Kazakov wrote:
>>> On Thu, 6 May 2004 09:03:54 +0200, "Jean-Pierre Rosen"
>>> > ... With is a library level
>>> > clause; it tells: "this unit, somewhere needs that unit".
>>> Why that should be told? I'd say that "with" is superfluous.
>>
>>I think it's to make it easier for the compiler. Without the with a lot
>>more semantic processing would be required, and probably an additional
>>pass.
> 
> Huh, you will never extort that from a with-lover. (:-)) Guess why?
> Because if that were the only reason, then there would be no more
> arguments against use-ing without with-ing!

We love with not because of compiler technicalities but because we like our
programs to be readable. To take your Example:

procedure P (I : in Something);

procedure P (I : in Foo.Something);

Now imagine P inside at least 500 lines of specification with at least 5
with statements.

And now try to argue that the first version is more readable.

Code is allways read more then written. That's because even when you change
code you have to read it first before you can make the change. And read the
change to make sure it's right.

So read > write - allways and therefore read is more important the write.

With Regards

Martin

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com