TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Proportional Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"C. Daniel Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 14 Apr 1998 16:15:01 -0700
X-To:
Reply-To:
"C. Daniel Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 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.

--

C. Daniel Cooper =========v=======================v
Engineer at Software      | All opinions are mine |
206-655-3519              | and may not represent |
[log in to unmask] | those of my employer. |
==========================^=======================^

ATOM RSS1 RSS2