Re: Ada95 tutorials with sample code.

[Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com>]

In article <wccitlmrk4s.fsf@world.std.com>, Robert A Duff says...
>Some folks (including me) think that the renaming solution gives you the
>worst of both worlds: the "Tio." is just noise, because it doesn't tell
>me *anything*.  I'd rather have "Put_Line(...)" or
>"Text_IO.Put_Line(...)".

I'm with you on that one; definitely the worst of both worlds. However, I'd have
to think on it a while before I could decide which is worse (terse rename, or
use clause) on a package less well-known than Text_IO.

>Another point is that the person who writes the package has to decide
>whether clients should say "use" of that package, because it makes a big
>difference in how names of things in that package are chosen.  It makes
>no sense to say "never use use" if the package you're importing was
>written with use clauses in mind.

Many large projects forbid the use clause; that is a fact. Another fact is that
it is possible to create names that work well with both, and thus that is the
goal that should generally be strived for. Failing that, a developer should
shoot for names that look decent w/o use clauses, as many large projects force
that style on the developers, but none (I have ever heard of) prevent package
dot notation. Someone using a "use" clause can still selectively use the dot
notation to make things look ok if they want. Developers should never write
packages "with use clauses in mind", unless they are certain that they will
never be used outside of their current development environment.

---
T.E.D.    homepage   - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html
          home email - mailto:dennison@telepath.com