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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!cme!leake
From: leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited Use Clause
Message-ID: <783@marvin.cme.nbs.gov>
Date: 7 Dec 88 17:59:38 GMT
References: <8812061626.AA13093@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
In-reply-to: rracine@AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU's message of 6 Dec 88 16:26:40 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <8812061626.AA13093@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> rracine@AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU writes:

   ... Why not use the unrestricted 'use'?  The only
   reason I have heard that can not be refuted is that it makes it hard to tell
   where to find things in source code.  That argument is not a language issue,
   however.  It is a Programming Support Environment issue.  The compiler
   knows where the various procedures are declared.  Why can't it give us a
   cross-reference listing at the end of each compilation?  

   ... Saying "Don't use 'use'" tells me a lot about a project.  It is not using
   a sufficient APSE.  It has people who complain about Ada, since they 
   probably have difficulty reading their code.  And they are probably behind
   schedule, for similar reasons.

I agree to some extent. A good APSE is essential. On the other hand,
many features of Ada are for the purpose of encouraging
maintainablity, so why not add one more, if it's not too hard? Any
APSE tool is bound to be (slightly) harder to use than an editor, so
having readable source code is a good start.

Stephe Leake 	(301) 975-3431 		leake@cme.nbs.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
Rm. B-124, Bldg. 220
Gaithersburg, MD  20899