Re: Ada Operators in 9x

[sampson@cod.nosc.mil (Charles H. Sampson)]

In article <BEVAN.93Jun27092606@hippo.cs.man.ac.uk> bevan@cs.man.ac.uk (Stephen
 J Bevan) writes:
>In article <9306261803.aa04612@Paris.ics.uci.edu> kanderso@liege.ICS.UCI.EDU (
Kenneth Anderson) writes:
>   >Mike Feldman wrote:
>   >   Suppose you _meant_ to write "q := 35;" but instead hit the shift
>   >   key accidentally and wrote "Q := 35;"
>
>   >Then you'd be doubly dumb.  Once for declaring "q" and "Q" in the same
>   >block and twice for being sloppy about typing.
>
>   You can't really mean the latter.  A person is "dumb" if they make
>   a typing mistake?
>
>That's your inference, not my implication.  Do you think it is a good
>idea to define "Q" and "q" in the same block?  ...

     How about this scenario?  Q is declared in a package specification. 
The programmer declares q in a piece of code that uses that package.  (The
project is large enough that programmers are not expected to know all iden-
tifiers in all package specifications; only those that are of interest to
their area.  This is the strength of the hierarchical declaration struc-
ture.)

     If you dislike this example because it relies on the use clause, cast
it in one of the contexts where the use clause is necessary.  Another pos-
sibility is declaring Q as a package regional identifier and q in a sepa-
rately compiled subunit.

     If you dislike "Q" and "q", substitute any reasonable short project-
specific identifier.

                              Charlie