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=2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fa1cf2c5543f9ef8 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1994-10-25 07:48:08 PST Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!watnews.watson.ibm.com!ncohen From: ncohen@watson.ibm.com (Norman H. Cohen) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: compilation time [was Re: Magnavox consultant] Date: 25 Oct 1994 13:58:20 GMT Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center Distribution: world Message-ID: <38j2ts$tsr@watnews1.watson.ibm.com> References: <38afut$8m9@news.delphi.com> Reply-To: ncohen@watson.ibm.com NNTP-Posting-Host: rios8.watson.ibm.com Date: 1994-10-25T13:58:20+00:00 List-Id: In article , 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