Re: Small question concerning use

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <3BCCF185.A4512DDA@san.rr.com>, Darren New says...
>
>tmoran@acm.org wrote:
>> OTOH, Ada.Streams.Stream_Element_Count was clearly designed with the
>> intention of "use Ada.Streams", in which case Stream_Element_Count
>> is very readable, while Ada.Streams.Stream_Element_Count is ugly.
>
>Right. My thought was that "always avoid use - it leads to ambiguities"
>is too sweeping a statement in the face of this sort of naming
>convention.

That's backward thinking, in my book. Just because someone made an awkward
naming choice on some packages is no reason to abandon the Right Thing.

Now if you don't feel that avioding "use"s is the Right Thing for other good
reasons, then that's fine. But horrible choices made by the library designers
are not a good reason.

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

No trees were killed in the sending of this message. 
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.