Re: Visibility problems with package instantiations.....

[Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 01 Dec 2003 11:31:19 -0500, Stephen Leake <Stephe.Leake@nasa.gov>
wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
>
>> On 30 Nov 2003 23:45:51 -0800, petter.fryklund@atero.se (Petter
>> Fryklund) wrote:
>
>> >Our CM policy
>> >also dictates a directory structure with every unit in it's own branch
>> >leading to a large tree.
>> 
>> It is a reasonable policy.
>
>Maybe for Java, which requires that directory structure anyway.
>
>But for Ada, which has a good way to name files that indicates the
>package heirarchy, directories should be used for even higher level
>organization, like projects.

For a small or medium sized project one can indeed pack everything in
one directory. With hundreds of files it becomes rather difficult. So
if there is no good code management system or IDE, it becomes
reasonable to have separate directories for project branches [mapped
to packages].

BTW, maybe a stupid idea, but what if we change file naming policy
allowing:

   package A.B is ...

to be named "b.ads" IFF that is placed in a subdirectory named "a" of
the directory containing "a.ads"?

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de