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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4200259190b16e16 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-04 01:12:33 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.DE!not-for-mail From: Dmitry A. Kazakov Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations..... Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2003 10:16:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: <95234e08.0311270742.631b1228@posting.google.com> <349csv0udb5k0kuk0q99d7tm7fh5leuefu@4ax.com> <95234e08.0311280323.7a5bb870@posting.google.com> <95234e08.0311302345.4f9e235b@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tar-atanamir.cbb-automation.de (212.79.194.116) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1070529153 71247947 212.79.194.116 ([77047]) X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3126 Date: 2003-12-04T10:16:30+01:00 List-Id: On 03 Dec 2003 13:09:25 -0500, Stephen Leake wrote: >Dmitry A. Kazakov writes: > >> On 02 Dec 2003 11:20:08 -0500, Stephen Leake >> wrote: >> >> >Dmitry A. Kazakov writes: >> > >> >> On 01 Dec 2003 11:31:19 -0500, Stephen Leake >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >Dmitry A. Kazakov 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