Re: Ada95 tutorials with sample code.

[Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>]

Sven Nilsson <emwsvni@emw.ericsson.se> writes:

> I'm sorry if I disrupt this thread with a slightly off-topic question
> (which I'm sure has been discussed countless times before) BUT

Yes, it has been discussed many times.  There is basically no agreement:
some folks like to use "use" almost all the time, other folks almost
never.  And some folks advocate renamings, as you suggest:

> package Tio renames Ada.Text_IO; -- Rename common packages so I don't
> have to 
>                                  -- type in the whole thing every time I
> use it

Some folks (including me) think that the renaming solution gives you the
worst of both worlds: the "Tio." is just noise, because it doesn't tell
me *anything*.  I'd rather have "Put_Line(...)" or
"Text_IO.Put_Line(...)".

After all, if "Tio" were a reasonable name for this thing, why didn't
Jean Ichbiah call it that in the first place?

(Note: I always have "use Ada;", so I would never say
"Ada.Text_IO.Put_Line(...);".)

(Another note: the rationale above, "so I don't have to type in the
whole thing...", is a poor reason to do *anything*.  If you said, "so I
don't have to read all that extra verbiage..." it might make sense.  The
cost of making computer programs has approximately nothing to do with
how much typing is involved.)

Another point is that the person who writes the package has to decide
whether clients should say "use" of that package, because it makes a big
difference in how names of things in that package are chosen.  It makes
no sense to say "never use use" if the package you're importing was
written with use clauses in mind.

- Bob