From: Jeffrey Carter <jrcarter@acm.org>
Subject: Re: Non-Stub In Inner Scope?
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 03:15:58 GMT
Date: 2001-05-20T03:15:58+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3B0736E2.6F781D7D@acm.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: NMBN6.5769$DW1.255373@iad-read.news.verio.net
Dr Nancy's Sweetie wrote:
>
> I see two obvious solutions:
>
> 1) The C-style solution, which is to move the stub into the package spec,
> and thus have it accessable by every part of the package. I don't
> like this because one reason to use Ada is that you can have local
> functions.
>
> 2) The Pascal-style solution, which is to cram the whole function (and
> it's really long, and there are several of them) into the declaration
> section of the Put_Line() procedure. I don't like this one, because
> because it means that between the line "procedure Put_Line(...) is"
> and the associated "begin", I would have almost 500 lines of code.
3) Make Put_Line separate, then make Wont_Work separate from it.
--
Jeff Carter
"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
Monty Python's Flying Circus
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-05-20 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-05-19 21:42 Non-Stub In Inner Scope? Dr Nancy's Sweetie
2001-05-19 22:01 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
2001-05-19 23:08 ` Robert A Duff
2001-05-20 10:50 ` RPrice9979
2001-05-20 3:15 ` Jeffrey Carter [this message]
2001-05-20 12:29 ` Marc A. Criley
2001-05-20 20:07 ` David C. Hoos, Sr.
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox