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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6c97cf9ad4aaff3e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jgamache@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com (Joe Gamache) Subject: Re: Which "/" is referenced in a numeric literal expression? Date: 1996/02/23 Message-ID: <4gkil1$837@news.sanders.lockheed.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 140821842 references: <4ft4u5$eu2@news.sanders.lockheed.com> <4g2c51$ep@news.sanders.lockheed.com> <4gcifh$itt@news.sanders.lockheed.com> organization: Lockheed Sanders mime-version: 1.0 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-02-23T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , dewar@cs.nyu.edu says... > >Joe said > >"The reduced version of my point is simple: since the example made use >of a "style" that should be avoided, the answer to the language questi >on >is somewhat moot. Not that the question should not be answered. But >rather, "here's the answer, BTW it doesn't matter since you shouldn't >ever be doing this anyway...."" > >Sorry, that is an untenable position. The language point in question w >as >completely independent of style. The point could have come up in progr >ams >consistent with any style you want. The idea that language examples us >ed >to discuss language issues should be in "good style" whatever that mea >ns >(style, unlike language issues is notoriously subjective) is completel >y >unhelpful. > The position is, in fact, easily defendable. Perhaps you should more carefully research the prior posts in this thread. The originator _actually_ had a question about the use of _constants_ in some GNAT supplied software. In the simplication "process", this facit concerning constants was removed. Thus, the "simplified" model was generalizable (if that is a word...) to an ADT package. Your _opinion_ may be that ADT packages have no rules, or are "completely independent of style." My _opinion_ is that there are certain rules which should _always_ be complied with on such packages. Chief among these is compliance with the rules first outlined by Parnas (in "On the Criteria to be used in Decomposing a System in Modules") back in 1972: in this he says, a "data structure, its internal linkings, accessing procedures and modifying procedures are part of a single module". This rule was delinated further by Liskov and Zilles in 1975: "... with the constraint that the behavior of the objects can be observed only by applications of the operations". I merely pointed out the inconsistency between the original post and these tenets. Ironically, had the intent of the _real_ problem, involving the use of constants, been maintained, my objections disappear. As always in these matters, you and anyone else are free to feel otherwise.... ---------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Gamache Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Co.