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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,429176cb92b1b825
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,CP1252
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Adam Beneschan <adam@irvine.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: AWS Coding Styles (and about boring plain-linear text files in
 the end)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2011 16:58:31 -0800 (PST)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: 
 <3077fffa-eed7-4763-8bca-9ac3bb0a41e1@o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com>
References: <op.vpfsjkfdule2fv@garhos>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 66.126.103.122
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1295312316 18992 127.0.0.1 (18 Jan 2011 00:58:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2011 00:58:36 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: o14g2000prn.googlegroups.com; posting-host=66.126.103.122;
 posting-account=duW0ogkAAABjRdnxgLGXDfna0Gc6XqmQ
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64;
 SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; .NET CLR
 3.5.30729; .NET CLR 3.0.30618; .NET4.0C),gzip(gfe)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:16498
Date: 2011-01-17T16:58:31-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Jan 16, 9:07=A0pm, Yannick Duch=EAne (Hibou57)
<yannick_duch...@yahoo.fr> wrote:

> In =938 Packages and Visibility Rules=94 :
>
> =A0 =A0 > Do not with two times the same unit, always use the
> =A0 =A0 > deepest child unit to with. For example do not write:
> =A0 =A0 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0with Ada.Strings;
> =A0 =A0 > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0with Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
> =A0 =A0 > but the equivalent form:
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0with Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
>
> =A0 =A0 I always do the opposite. I feel it is clearer if I
> =A0 =A0 refer to the parent unit. If I don't, I do not withed
> =A0 =A0 the parent unit (i.e. I state something about usage in
> =A0 =A0 the withed declarations).

My preference is to say "with Ada.Strings;", even if I am also
with'ing Ada.Strings.Unbounded, if (and only if) I am referring to
something actually declared in Ada.Strings (such as
Ada.Strings.Direction).  I think that makes things clearer.  I can't
really imagine why anyone would think it's a bad idea to say "with
Ada.Strings;" in that case.

Then again, I've never had much use for style guides, especially when
they're enforced.  I think I do a good job of being sensitive to
others who might read my source, and writing in a way that makes it
easier on them; sometimes strict rules can actually prevent me from
doing the best job of this, especially since the one who writes the
rules may not have thought about every possible circumstance.

                                     -- Adam