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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!uflorida!novavax!augusta!bs
From: bs@augusta.UUCP (Burch Seymour)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited Use Clause
Message-ID: <1526@augusta.UUCP>
Date: 9 Dec 88 13:58:18 GMT
References: <7311@claris.com>
Organization: Gould CSD, Fort Lauderdale, FL
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Another believer. I was involved in a medium sized project in which we
used the 2 step approach. Build a prototype as the means of studying
the design requirements, then build the real thing. In the prototype we
kind of hacked away using use clauses with abandon. When it came time
to go back and clean everything up, I realized that even though I had
written the code I had difficulty finding routines, and especially
global data items, because there were so many. As a result, I removed
all the use clauses and used explicit references.

And I also agree to the limited use idea. I did have a few instances of
having to declare an "=" operator. I don't think that causes a great
deal of ambiguity when defaulted.

-bs-