Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X

["björn lundin" <b.f.lundin@gmail.com>]

Den onsdagen den 23:e april 2014 kl. 18:42:55 UTC+2 skrev J-P. Rosen:
> Le 23/04/2014 18:31, björn lundin a écrit :
> 
> > No. using the 'use' is certainly something one can have different opinions on.
> 

> 
> I would tend to say that the "use" has the benefit to show you that you
> used the same name in various contexts with various meanings, and that a
> bit of reingeneering might be in order...

Yes. it might. or not. 
The code is written by several programmers during different times.
I think each of them had good reasons to declare a constant NO_ERROR,
when communicationg with different devices, like PLCs.
Either in a conveyor sub system or in a crane sub system. 
Calling then SIEMENS_S5_NO_ERROR or CRANE_NO_ERROR would put the ambiguity away,
but the code would look awful.

The clash was recent, due to ever evolving changes- new demands from customers.
New demands lead me to define yet another NO_ERROR constant, for a new subsystem,
siemens s7.

but reengineer a running project due to I cannot use 'use' in this context.
Well, yes, if the customer pays for that. Otherwise, they are happy with me qualifying NO_ERROR with correct package name.

So, In a technical sense I agree. Re-engineer. But in a practical sense I do not.
Cost way too much, and gains too little.

while my suggestions about 'Img may not gain very much, it would help at least me.
and it would probably not cost very much

/Björn