From: vilot@wanginst.UUCP (Michael Vilot)
Subject: Re: Preferred style of use-clauses
Date: Wed, 13-Aug-86 17:11:30 EDT [thread overview]
Date: Wed Aug 13 17:11:30 1986
Message-ID: <169@wanginst.UUCP> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 2938@sdcrdcf.UUCP
In article <2938@sdcrdcf.UUCP> lwall@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Larry Wall) writes:
>
>If you are in a situation where the types of your subprogram arguments are
>clear, and your abstract types are all nicely confined to packages so that
>you don't rely on hiding mechanisms of dubious value, I see no reason to
>avoid the use of multiple USE clauses, even in large projects, even where
>it results in overloading.
Consider one more reason to have USE clauses: changing a package's
imported environment explicitly. Suppose you have built a test
version of a system which instruments some features you are interested
in. Now, suppose you have to get the same system into "production
shape" (i.e. faster and/or smaller), and you're not interested in the
instrumentation. It may be far easier to go from:
with Heavily_Instrumented_Package; use Heavily_Instrumented_Package;
procedure The_System is
begin
Do_Interesting_Stuff;
end;
... to:
with Simpler_and_Faster_Package; use Simpler_and_Faster_Package;
procedure The_System is
begin
Do_Interesting_Stuff;
end;
... than to replace all occurrences of the fully qualified
names.
Of course, in a well-run project, the need for two versions is
all seen in advance, and the change should "never be needed" :-)
prev parent reply other threads:[~1986-08-13 21:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1986-08-02 13:01 Preferred style of use-clauses "David S. Bakin"
1986-08-05 17:15 ` alden%jade
1986-08-06 20:45 ` Larry Wall
1986-08-13 21:11 ` Michael Vilot [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox