Re: Ada95 tutorials with sample code.

[Simon Wright <simon@pushface.org>]

Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com> writes:

> Ted Dennison<dennison@telepath.com> writes:
> 
> > The common example used is Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To_Unbounded_String. Even I
> > have to admit this looks stupid. However, I'd claim that the stupidity is
> > entirely a result of stupid naming on the designers part. They quite easily
> > could have named the routine Ada.Strings.Unbounded.To, ...
> 
> Is this supposed to be an example of a name that works well both with
> and without use clauses?  Yikes.

This is an example of a name that was intended to work with 'use'. I
think that most of the Ada hierarchy is like that ..

> >...rather than repeating the
> > names of two parent packages in the subprogram's identifier.
> 
> I think it's repeating the name of a *type*, not packages.

Similarly, I've just done a Great renaming on the Booch Components
(http://www.pushface.org/components/bc/), replacing types like
BC.Containers.Collections.Unbounded.Unbounded_Collection by
BC.Containers.Collections.Unbounded.Collection (OK, these are generic
packages, so what's actually visible to the user has become something
more like My_Library_Unit.Collection rather than
My_Library_Unit.Unbounded_Collection). This was a change forced by
actually trying to _use_ my own work ..