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: 103376,6cb2525ffbfe23ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dennison@telepath.com Subject: Re: Why both "with" and "use"? Date: 1999/02/19 Message-ID: <7ak471$rt9$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 446095788 References: <36C5B28C.F32C43A4@jps.net> <7acj53$1vu@news3.newsguy.com> <7af68r$52o$1@platane.wanadoo.fr> <7ahq7p$s6k$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x7.dejanews.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130 Organization: Deja News - The Leader in Internet Discussion X-Article-Creation-Date: Fri Feb 19 16:41:07 1999 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.5 [en] (WinNT; I) Date: 1999-02-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Matthew Heaney wrote: > dennison@telepath.com writes: > > > In article <7af68r$52o$1@platane.wanadoo.fr>, > > "Jean-Pierre Rosen" 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