Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations.....

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 03 Dec 2003 13:09:25 -0500, Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>
>> On 02 Dec 2003 11:20:08 -0500, Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> >
>> >> On 01 Dec 2003 11:31:19 -0500, Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> >Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On 30 Nov 2003 23:45:51 -0800, petter.fryklund@atero.se (Petter
>> >> >> Fryklund) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Our CM policy
>> >> >> >also dictates a directory structure with every unit in it's own branch
>> >> >> >leading to a large tree.
>> >> >> 
>> >> >> It is a reasonable policy.
>> >> >
>> >> >Maybe for Java, which requires that directory structure anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >But for Ada, which has a good way to name files that indicates the
>> >> >package heirarchy, directories should be used for even higher level
>> >> >organization, like projects.
>> >> 
>> >> For a small or medium sized project one can indeed pack everything in
>> >> one directory. With hundreds of files it becomes rather difficult. 
>> >
>> >Why? I don't have a problem with 280 files on Windows 2000. What sorts
>> >of problems do you run into?
>> 
>> To find a file in that huge directory. 
>
>How does having multiple directories make that easier?

I know which directory should contain the file. And that directory is
relatively small.

>> Note also that a nested package of level 5 could have name like:
>> 
>>    fuzzy.graph.handle.learning.implementation.ads
>> 
>> It becomes a pain to navigate across this directory. It is difficult
>> for human eye to recognize a postfix of a long name. 
>
>Hmm. In emacs, I pull up the whole directory, then search in the
>buffer.
>
>But actually, to navigate Ada source, I don't tend to use file names;
>I use Ada names, and let Emacs figure out where the files are.

I see. You know, an ability to accept emacs is IMO sort of genetically
preprogrammed. (:-))

>> So one have to separate files in some way. One possible way is to
>> mimic the package tree. It is a reasonable way, but not the only
>> one.
>
>File names that mimic the package tree are better than directories
>that mimic the package tree, in my opinion. I haven't heard any solid
>evidence here to contradict that.

As a emacs user you should see little difference between:

    fuzzy-graph-handle-learning-implementation.ads

and

    fuzzy/graph/handle/learning/implementation.ads

after all one can substitute '/' for '-' in emacs.

Then, do not you feel that packing everything in one directory is
similar to packing all packages in one huge all_stuff.ada file? I mean
that if we accept the idea of mapping compilation units to files, we
should also, consequently, accept mapping of their parent-child
relations to the directory-file ones.

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de