From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
Subject: Re: Style question: deep inheritance
Date: 9 Dec 2002 07:05:04 -0800
Date: 2002-12-09T15:05:04+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4519e058.0212090705.1fbe2c4b@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 5463bc76.0212060300.2f78f4dc@posting.google.com
David95038@aol.com (David Kristola) wrote in message news:<5463bc76.0212060300.2f78f4dc@posting.google.com>...
> > From: Dale Stanbrough
> > I'ld simply suggest that you use the "use" clause
> > to reduce the baggage.
>
> I've been in the defense industry for many long
> years. I'm still recovering from the "don't use
> use" mentality. I'll get there eventually.
No rush. I have written quite a few Free Software projects in Ada, and
haven't used "use package" once. Like Ada itself, many of the
development standards from the defense industry are good ones.
I know this is a contraversial subject, and I don't want to get into a
argument with those who think there's nothing wrong with "use
package". I'd just like to point out that there's no reason to loosen
a development standard you find sensible just because your client is
different.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-12-09 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-12-03 11:44 Style question: deep inheritance David Kristola
2002-12-03 12:55 ` Dale Stanbrough
2002-12-03 12:56 ` Marc A. Criley
2002-12-04 6:56 ` Anders Wirzenius
2002-12-04 12:41 ` Marc A. Criley
2002-12-06 11:00 ` David Kristola
2002-12-09 15:05 ` Ted Dennison [this message]
2002-12-03 14:21 ` Stephen Leake
2002-12-04 19:19 ` Ted Dennison
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox