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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Received: by 10.42.123.66 with SMTP id q2mr20518386icr.16.1398275463457; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.94.169 with SMTP id g38mr232507qge.13.1398275463419; Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) Path: border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!backlog3.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!l13no10111148iga.0!news-out.google.com!dz10ni19326qab.1!nntp.google.com!cm18no5706358qab.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 10:51:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=46.195.42.127; posting-account=3_reEwoAAAC163IAIrx427KYmwahFuh9 NNTP-Posting-Host: 46.195.42.127 References: <7f1c01c5-3563-4b94-9831-152dbbf2ecdc@googlegroups.com> <9f156351-e3d0-4d86-b816-1d5e09ee69da@googlegroups.com> <4e3a0e68-1514-4255-9c76-ef8758991ded@googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Your wish list for Ada 202X From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?bj=F6rn_lundin?= Injection-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 17:51:03 +0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Original-Bytes: 2950 Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:186035 Date: 2014-04-23T10:51:03-07:00 List-Id: Den onsdagen den 23:e april 2014 kl. 18:42:55 UTC+2 skrev J-P. Rosen: > Le 23/04/2014 18:31, bj=F6rn lundin a =E9crit : >=20 > > No. using the 'use' is certainly something one can have different opini= ons on. >=20 >=20 > 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.=20 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.=20 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 custom= ers. New demands lead me to define yet another NO_ERROR constant, for a new subs= ystem, 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 d= o not. Cost way too much, and gains too little. while my suggestions about 'Img may not gain very much, it would help at le= ast me. and it would probably not cost very much /Bj=F6rn