Re: 'with'ing and 'use'ing

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-deja.com>]

In article <8a3959$qmg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Ted Dennison <dennison@telepath.com> wrote:

> I would further claim that, given this fact, it is improper to
> choose a naming convention for a reusable package that might
> be used by someone in one of the above situations, that looks
> stupid with the package name on the front when there is a
> convention available that will not look
> stupid under either either usage.


Depends, for those of us who like to use the whole language, it
looks "stupid" to have unnecessary qualification all over the
place.

As to whether your project must worry about the issues you
raise (e.g. reading the code on paper), that's of course
project specific.

It's interesting that the GNAT sources themselves use "USE"
very liberally, and everyone we know who has dug into these
sources reasonably deeply has found them extremely easy to
use. Yes, I occasionally issue a gnatfind command to locate
where an entity is defined (this by the way takes essentially
zero time even in a very large program), but only very
occasionally, and I would find the sources much less readable
if they were fully dotted.

It's partially a matter of taste, but to argue that your
approach of subsetting the language is the only "proper"
approach seems extreme. Yes, I realize that you are talking
about reusable packages, but you are taking the position that
the design of Ada 95 itself is improper. Everyone is entitled
to such opinions of course, but clearly you place yourself
in a small minority if you think Ada 95 is improperly designed
in this respect (no one even raised this issue in either the
DR's or WG9 during the design for example)


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