Re: 'with'ing and 'use'ing

[Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <89jk9g$u3b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <89jdfu$ok4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,

> I don't! But equally arguing that the second is easier to
> understand than the first is also a heavy bruden. They
> are really pretty much equivalent in the environment where
> you know that Angle_Handling options is a package, and

Well, there *is* the extra information in the second. But I'll give you
the point with your caveat included. The big problem is when this is
done for a general-purpose package, where the author has no prior
knowledge that it will be used in such an environment.


> either is preferable in my view to
>  ANHN.Options := True;

I have to agree completely with that one. However, I've only seen that
happen very rarely, and always by a Fortran refugee who's used to
working with names like this.

I'd personally consider that a completely separate third style that is
used mainly by less skilled engineers who don't know any better.

> some of the time but not all. Unbounded strings in Annex A
> is a perfect example of the kind of naming I think is quite
> appropriate for a package intended to be used (as someone
> else pointed out on this list).

Its actually exhibit A for the kind of thing I'm complaining about. How
do the authors of that package know that I have a system where its
appropriate to perform "use"s? They don't. But nevertheless they wrote
it such that my only choice is to do a "use" or write stupid-looking
redundant code.

--
T.E.D.

http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.