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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,2c6139ce13be9980 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public From: Samuel Mize Subject: Re: Interface/Implementation (was Re: Design by Contract) Date: 1997/09/12 Message-ID: <34196B5F.458F@link.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 271889654 References: <3416CA7D.50A@link.com> Organization: Hughes Training Inc. Reply-To: smize@link.com Newsgroups: comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-09-12T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > > Samuel Mize says > > < read an Ada unit with a lot of sub-procedures, you wind up reading > it from the end backward.>> > > Once again, I do not know what this is about. It's about the claim that "dependency ordering" increases human comprehension of a package or subprogram. If we in Ada usually defeat the default dependency ordering, for clarity, that's hardly a stellar recommendation for its ability to increase human comprehension. Perhaps a better way to phrase my statement would have been: An Ada unit -- package or subprogram -- that contains internal declarations is read from the end backward UNLESS you use an explicit idiom that defeats the "dependency ordering." This is especially true for a subprogram that contains other subprograms, since the first code executed has to be at the end of the unit. >I can imagine someone > deliberately ordering a program so that it has to be read from the > end backward, but I thankfully never encountered an Ada program > written this way, and the suggestion that this is somehow required > in Ada is entirely bogus. True. It is not required. However, if a package contains a lot subprograms, it requires a specific effort (pre-declaring the procedures) to enable human-oriented rather than compiler-oriented ordering. Sam Mize