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: 103376,900edaa189af2033
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Ada95 OOP Questions
Date: 1996/08/09
Message-ID: <dewar.839592950@schonberg>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 173138119
references: <dewar.838959126@schonberg> <4u4ln3$fur@mailsrv2.erno.de>
 <dewar.839329517@schonberg> <3209E295.167EB0E7@escmail.orl.mmc.com>
organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-08-09T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


"That sounds cool. It makes sense that the compiler (or something built off
of it) could do the most efficient and accurate job of chasing down
references. But how useful is this? Is it fast enough to be more of a
help than a hinderance? Does ANYONE do this? I take it you don't, since
you don't use emacs."

Right, I don't use it, although I am learning EMACS now (part of my
conversion from OS/2 and EPM to Win 95 :-)

I think in practice that thisw feature (using GNATF to provide information
to EMACS) will be much more useful when GNATF is integrated into GNAT, so
that you just get in the habit of compiling with the appropriate cross
referencing option (this will slow down compilation, but machines are
getting faster all the time, and besides, we probably will save enough
from going to the fast version of the GNAT front end to easily pay for
the extra cost of the cross reference processing).