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,
	MSGID_RANDY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c2f62556e56c9683
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com>
Subject: Re: 'with'ing and 'use'ing
Date: 2000/03/01
Message-ID: <89jls5$vgp$1@nnrp1.deja.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 591838698
References: <yoxzosjx5o1.fsf@dymock.dra.hmg.gb> <89h5lh$70r$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <89j5h5$j0j$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <89jdfu$ok4$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <89jk9g$u3b$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
X-Http-Proxy: 1.0 x35.deja.com:80 (Squid/1.1.22) for client 204.48.27.130
Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy.
X-Article-Creation-Date: Wed Mar 01 18:00:42 2000 GMT
X-MyDeja-Info: XMYDJUIDtedennison
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
X-Http-User-Agent: Mozilla/4.7 [en] (WinNT; I)
Date: 2000-03-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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.