Re: Ada95 tutorials with sample code.

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <wcchf16rca2.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff says...
>
>Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
>
>> The common example used is Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String. Even I
>> have to admit this looks stupid. However, I'd claim that the stupidity is
>> entirely a result of stupid naming on the designers part. They quite easily
>> could have named the routine Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To, ...
>
>Is this supposed to be an example of a name that works well both with
>and without use clauses?  Yikes.

No, its pretty clearly an example that works best with full named-notation.
Getting something that looks beautiful with both would take more consideration
that I was willing to give to a quick post. :-)

However, suppose it were my atrocious "To". There would be absolutely nothing
stopping someone who has a "use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;" from writing
"Unbounded.To" or "Strings.Unbounded.To", where now they write
"To_Unbounded_String". However, someone who doesn't have a "use
Ada.Strings.Unbounded;" is currently *forced* to write the stupid-looking
"Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String".

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com