Re: compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consultant]

[ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen)]

In article <Cy7A46.6K2@inmet.camb.inmet.com>, bobduff@dsd.camb.inmet.com
(Bob Duff) writes: 

|> Note also that each child unit will tend to have *fewer* with_clauses,
|> since the child is implementing only a part of the whole abstraction,
|> and will presumably need to with fewer things.  I don't know how this
|> will affect the overall numbers.

More to the point, what is a child of package P in an Ada 94 program is
likely to have been written in Ada 83 as a separate library unit
(conceptually part of the same subsystem, but too large to be included in
a monolithic spec for package P) mentioning P in a with clause.  Making
the unit a child allows it to reference the facilities of P without a
with clause.

|> [I hate using the word "with" as verb.  :-( ]

William Safire's "On Language" column in this past Sunday's New York
Times Magazine was concerned with the emerging use of "with" as an
ADVERB, as in "I'll have a cup of coffee with," or "Fax me the papers so
I can take them with."

--
Norman H. Cohen    ncohen@watson.ibm.com