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: 103376,5c72b6fec2f83257 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Help: Binary operator "=" Date: 1997/06/10 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 247442445 References: <3381c4ba.quantum@quantum.pc.my> <33932325.6E38@lmtas.lmco.com> <339B6B90.41F@lmco.com> Organization: New York University Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-06-10T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ken says <> Which in fact leads to a different criterion entirely. Instead of having an absolute "never-use-use" rule, you are really suggesting a rule that says, use qualification when it is helpful, and not otherwise. That sounds like an entirely reasonable rule to me. For example, in the case of GNAT, we generally expect that those looking seriously at the GNAT compiler sources get to know where things are pretty quickly, since there is a rather systematic placement of functionality (for example, you know that Analyze_Subprogram_Body will be in Sem_Ch6, since analysis is to do with semantics, and subprogram bodies are in chapter 6 of the RM). On the other hand, the runtime library is hundreds of interlinked units, and it is definitely helpful to use qualification extensively in this context, particularly in the specs.