You might want to check out Rational Apex. I don't believe you should be
deciding on whether to qualify names or not simply because you have
The Rational Apex browser will "jump" to the definition of an item with a
single click (same window or bring up another window), regardless of whether
name is qualified or not. Numerous Rational Apex users get "hooked" on the
browser for this feature alone.
There are still arguments one way or the other about use clauses with regard
to "local readability", but the issue of locating the original definition is
taken out of the argument.
Even with fully qualified names, doing "tracing" as you describe can often
be difficult, particularly when separates are used or there are many similar
or overloaded names. And then there is the problem of finding exactly where
a type definition is located in a large source file.
With the Rational Apex browser, one click takes you directly to the line
where the item is specified (a different click will take you to the body
definition for subprograms).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Monday, November 06, 2000 12:24 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: "use" statements...
> [log in to unmask] (Robin Reaganwrote:
> >I've started a new project on my own and I am trying to use as much
> >reusable code as possible. The problem (actually more of an
> >annoyance) I'm running into is that most of the code I'm trying to
> >reuse, has a "use" statement for each "with" statement. When trying
> >to debug or just understand what is going on in someone else's code,
> >it makes it more difficult to trace where things are coming from
> >when the "use" is added for no apparent reason then the convenience
> >of typing fewer characters.
> >For those of you that are distributing reusable code, you might want
> >to think about this as it makes your code less readable/reusable
> >when there are "use" statements for each "with" (IMHO).
> There are (at least) two schools of thought in this area,
> so the concept of reusing components that were developed
> under a different style is bound to lead to a conflict of
> style. Of course in an ideal world, those components you
> reuse will just work perfectly and not require debugging :-)
> The nice thing about Ada is that "use" clauses within the
> reused code do not require you follow the same style in your
> own code.