From: dennison@telepath.com
Subject: Re: Why both "with" and "use"?
Date: 1999/02/19
Date: 1999-02-19T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <7ak471$rt9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: m3ogmr40bj.fsf@mheaney.ni.net
In article <m3ogmr40bj.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>,
Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> dennison@telepath.com writes:
>
> > In article <7af68r$52o$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>,
> > "Jean-Pierre Rosen" <rosen.adalog@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> > > Actually, I wonder how people who always use expanded names can know
> > > precisely how packages are used... (Point of information: I hate cross
> > > checking with X-refs ;-).
> >
> > A good point. But since named notation isn't used, you can't clearly see
what
> > in that scope is from what package. Without resorting to a cross-referencing
> > tool you don't really know *how* the package is used, just roughly *where*.
> >
> > With named notation a simple textual search through the source will suffice.
> > No fancy tool required.
>
> True, but no fancy tool is required if you use certain naming
> conventions.
You mean if *everyone* uses certain naming conventions. I have no control over
the naming conventions the autors of the LRM and reusable components used.
Anyway, doesn't it seem silly to have a standard where one repeats the package
name in every identifier so that dot notation doesn't have to be used? Is the
'_' character somehow superior to the '.'?
Your example is particularly appropriate, because
Ada.Strings.Unbounded.Unbounded_String looks like it was created by the
department of redundancy department. :-)
T.E.D.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1999-02-19 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1999-02-13 0:00 Why both "with" and "use"? Mike Silva
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Corey Minyard
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-02-14 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-13 0:00 ` bill
1999-02-14 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-14 0:00 ` dewar
1999-02-14 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-16 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-17 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
1999-02-17 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-17 0:00 ` Nick Roberts
1999-02-17 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-17 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-17 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
1999-02-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-18 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
1999-02-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
1999-02-18 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-18 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-02-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-23 0:00 ` Robert I. Eachus
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Brian Hanson
1999-02-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-19 0:00 ` dennison
1999-02-19 0:00 ` bourguet
1999-02-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-19 0:00 ` dennison [this message]
1999-02-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Ada multiple string personalities. why so many? mike
1999-02-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Tom Moran
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Mike Silva
1999-02-22 0:00 ` Brian Hanson
1999-02-19 0:00 ` Why both "with" and "use"? dennison
1999-02-19 0:00 ` robert_dewar
1999-02-13 0:00 ` mike
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Pat Rogers
1999-02-13 0:00 ` bill
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Pat Rogers
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-13 0:00 ` bill
1999-02-14 0:00 ` Pat Rogers
1999-02-14 0:00 ` Bob Collins
1999-02-14 0:00 ` Pat Rogers
1999-02-16 0:00 ` Samuel Mize
1999-02-13 0:00 ` Matthew Heaney
1999-02-15 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
1999-02-15 0:00 ` Ed Falis
1999-02-16 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
1999-02-15 0:00 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox