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=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,900edaa189af2033
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Thomas.Kendelbacher@erno.de (Thomas Kendelbacher)
Subject: Re: Ada95 OOP Questions
Date: 1996/07/29
Message-ID: <4tibbb$lrn@mailsrv2.erno.de>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 171091040
references: <lhmvif7ny2a.fsf@berlin.berlin.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>
organization: Daimler-Benz Aerospace, Space Infrastructure
reply-to: Thomas.Kendelbacher@erno.de
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-29T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <lhmvif7ny2a.fsf@berlin.berlin.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de>, Andre Spiegel <spiegel@berlin.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de> writes:
>Spasmo writes:
>
>> with Persons;
>> 
>> procedure Main is
>> 
>> 	P : Persons.Person;
>> 
>> begin
>> 	Persons.Walk(P);
>> 	Persons.Talk(P);
>> 	Persons.Eat(P);
>> end Main;
>
>With a use-clause, it looks better
>
>    with Persons; use Persons;
>
>    P : Person;
>
>    Walk (P);
>    Talk (P);
>    Eat  (P);

No, it doesn't look better, at least to me.
(OK, this is a 5-liner; consider a 'real' program.)

Having been working on large-scale Ada projects for years, I have learned
to avoid the use of use as much as possible.

As a consequence, I always try to find package names that create good-looking,
meaningful compound names when used in dot notation ("<pckg-name>.<proc-name>").

-- 
Thomas Kendelbacher   |   email : Thomas.Kendelbacher@erno.de
DASA RI / Abt. RIT14  |   voice : +49 421 539 5492 (working hours)
Postfach 28 61 56     |      or : +49 421 57 04 37 (any other time)
D-28361 Bremen        |     fax : +49 421 539 4529 (any time)
Germany