From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 3 Dec 92 14:43:34 GMT
From: dog.ee.lbl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio
-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!firth@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Robe
rt Firth)
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <1992Dec3.094334.20038@sei.cmu.edu>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <9212022347.AA03025@s405.dseg.ti.com> fmoore@sun405.dseg.ti.com (Fre
eman Moore) writes:

>We have a programming standard that limits the number of
>executable statements in a compilation unit.

There's the answer: change the standard.  Presumably, this standard
is meant to enhance code readability, testability, maintainability
&c.  Simply hacking out a chunk of code as "is separate" will not
enhance any of the above, so the standard is defeating itself.

It would probably be better to restrict not the size but the
functionality of each compilation unit, using perhaps function
points as the key metric.  For example, one case statement,
switching on the value of one parameter, should surely be one
compilation unit, but it can be of arbitrary length.