Re: Trivia: Ada packages are great!

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

"Maciej Sobczak" <see.my.homepage@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:f57a37a4-9557-40d8-8f4f-1d97751fe4ea@googlegroups.com...
...
> GNAT accepts this with Test as a starting point. No
> specification files, no packages. Even "with Foo;" works fine
> without any separate spec file.
> Hey, we are closer to the obfuscated Ada context!

Sure, but the names of compilation units still have to be unique -- no 
overloading is allowed. So there still can be used to unambigiously name 
things. Ada 83 was designed carefully so that nearly(*) everything can be 
named with a full expanded name starting with the compilation unit. That was 
done in particular to help with "programming-in-the-large", and specifically 
to help with integration of large packages. There is always a way to work 
around an integration conflict without restructuring anything. (Whether 
restructuring would be a better idea is a separate issue, of course.) Of 
course, if people avoided

(*) Items in unnamed blocks and loops don't have full expanded names, but 
since these are local by nature they hardly ever are involved in an 
integration conflict. That's more of a problem for language-defined images 
(of exceptions and tags, in particular).

                                              Randy.