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=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-30 15:06:41 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!fr.ip.ndsoftware.net!proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!enst.fr!melchior!cuivre.fr.eu.org!melchior.frmug.org!not-for-mail From: "Alexandre E. Kopilovitch" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 02:02:45 +0300 (MSK) Organization: Cuivre, Argent, Or Message-ID: References: <1b585154.0312301003.4f868eb8@posting.google.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: lovelace.ada-france.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org 1072825523 79371 80.67.180.195 (30 Dec 2003 23:05:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@melchior.cuivre.fr.eu.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 23:05:23 +0000 (UTC) To: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org Return-Path: In-Reply-To: <1b585154.0312301003.4f868eb8@posting.google.com>; from Peter Richtmyer at 30 Dec 2003 10:03:13 -0800 X-Mailer: Mail/@ [v2.44 MSDOS] X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p5 (Debian) at ada-france.org X-BeenThere: comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.3 Precedence: list List-Id: Gateway to the comp.lang.ada Usenet newsgroup List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3972 Date: 2003-12-31T02:02:45+03:00 Peter Richtmyer wrote: > > The point of > > with's is that you can see a summary of the interconnections between > > compilation units all in one spot, right up front. > > > > I wish this were true! Just look in one place. > > However, take a not-too-unusual situation of a package spec and body > with a few "separate" routines, and perhaps some child packages > with a few separates each. "Good practice" says put the with's > down where needed, not all in the pkg spec. So in a child pkg > separate, you need to look in up to 5 different files to see > what might be used (with'd) by the separate. For the entire package, > you need to look at all the files to see what all the "interconnections" > are. > > Or do you advocate putting them all in the spec? Perhaps this is a case when an opportunity to centralize the whole context explicitly - using the construct I mentioned in this newsgroup about a week ago: package XXX context is with ...; ... end XXX; package body XXX context is with ...; end XXX; would be useful. The most interesting value of (optional) separation of the whole context (or, perhaps, part of it) is in that it eases various extentions and ramifications of the notion of context. For example, "with" for private part can be easily introduced, and specific contexts for separate routines also may be incorporated in this condtruct without much difficulty. Alexander Kopilovitch aek@vib.usr.pu.ru Saint-Petersburg Russia