Charles: suggestion for reliability

Charles: suggestion for reliability

[Victor Porton]

I suggest to rename function Size in Charles to something like
Physical_Size or Phys_Size or Allocation_Size because otherwise
it is *too* confusing as one may use Size by mistake instead of
Length. We need warning on using size. I an future version,
please remove Size.

I even used to write Length or Size at random and grant to the
compiler to warn me if I choose the wrong name! May be not only I.

Re: Charles: suggestion for reliability

[Preben Randhol]

Victor Porton wrote:
> I suggest to rename function Size in Charles to something like
> Physical_Size or Phys_Size or Allocation_Size because otherwise
> it is *too* confusing as one may use Size by mistake instead of
> Length. We need warning on using size. I an future version,
> please remove Size.

? I thought Size in Ada always meant that what you wrote above and not
Lenght so why should it be confusing?

-- 
Preben Randhol ------------------------ http://www.pvv.org/~randhol/ --
�There are three things you can do to a woman. You can love her, suffer
 for her, or turn her into literature.�  - Justine, by Lawrence Durrell

Re: Charles: suggestion for reliability

[Matthew Heaney]

porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) wrote in message news:<3dd082fe$0$303$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>...
> I suggest to rename function Size in Charles to something like
> Physical_Size or Phys_Size or Allocation_Size because otherwise
> it is *too* confusing as one may use Size by mistake instead of
> Length. We need warning on using size. I an future version,
> please remove Size.

The term "size" as used in Charles is consistent with typical Ada
usage, and it refers the amount of physical storage consumed by the
object.

The term "length" is also consistent with typical Ada usage, and it
refers to the number of elements in the container.

Your suggestion is noted, and rejected.