TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy


Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 08:40:08 +0200
text/plain (30 lines)
>Mike Brenner wrote,
>> Here is another statistic. To add it up carefully, you must not
>> just grep on the word with. You must filter out comments nad
>> quoted string and variable containing the word with as a substring.
>> There was another thing to filter out: withs that were temporarily
>> commented out. I uncommented 5 withs for this count, because they
>> are uncommented for certain ports, since Ada does not have
>> conditional compilation.
>Of course, the counting also needs to consider that a context clause
>of the form "WITH Foo, Bar;" should count as *two* not one: the actual
>motivation is to reduce the number of dependencies, not the the number
>of clauses per se. So when we talk about the number of WITHs that a unit
>has, we really intend to refer to the the number of units it depends on.
>Such counting is simplified by coding standards that disallow multiple
>unit WITH clauses.
Which raises an interesting question: how do you count:
with A.B.C;

as you know, it is equivalent to:
with A, A.B, A.B.C;

from the point of view of visibility rules, it is clearly equivalent to three withs. OTOH, it is likely that the programmer uses only the ultimate child.
                  J-P. Rosen ([log in to unmask])
      Visit Adalog's web site at