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 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "J-P. Rosen" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Diamond diagram for 'with' Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 10:27:32 +0100 Organization: Adalog Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:27:31 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="c0a00cdc3b3b5ffed6a2f7182011cab9"; logging-data="4467"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19EfApqxrWr2Iq0Y5MHdSda" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: fr Cancel-Lock: sha1:e+HY3O+8TFmD8RljY8yte6N0WSQ= Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:50544 Date: 2018-02-22T10:27:32+01:00 List-Id: Le 22/02/2018 à 09:33, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit : > I am keeping on avoiding "limited with", and the only time I lowered my > guard, it bite me! (:-)) Yes, limited with is a bit of a hack, but remember that the ARG had to solve the issue of mutual dependency, and 6 other non-working solutions were considered before this one, not very clean, but that worked! As a rule of thumb, don't use limited with unless you are unable to compile due to circular dependencies between package specs. In that case, carefully consider using one limited with to break the circularity. -- J-P. Rosen Adalog 2 rue du Docteur Lombard, 92441 Issy-les-Moulineaux CEDEX Tel: +33 1 45 29 21 52, Fax: +33 1 45 29 25 00 http://www.adalog.fr