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: 103376,45abc3b718b20aa3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Two ideas for the next Ada standard Date: 1996/09/02 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 177967840 references: <5009h5$ir4@netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov> <507akg$t9u@krusty.irvine.com> <50d2nb$eko@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-09-02T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <50d2nb$eko@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl>, Geert Bosch wrote: >You shouldn't put with_clauses inside things! Currently you can easily see >what packages a compilation module depends on, since with_clauses are >right at the start of the file. Yeah, but you can't easily tell what the name of the thing is, or whether it's a package spec or body or procedure or whatever, because there are 20 lines of with_clauses first. IMHO the *name* of the thing is it's most important property, and should therefore come first. >... It would be a really bad idea if it was >possible to, for example, hide an instantiation of an Unchecked_Conversion >somewhere in the package spec. Agreed. I really meant "inside, but right at the top". Similar to the rule for where a pragma Pure goes. Or maybe with special syntax marking that start and finish of the "imports part" or some such thing. Not scattered all over in the middle of the package. - Bob