TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Mime-Version:
1.0
Sender:
"Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To:
Jean-Pierre Rosen <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 13:04:57 -0400
Reply-To:
"Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"Robert I. Eachus" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (31 lines)
At 08:40 AM 4/15/98 +0200, Jean-Pierre Rosen wrote:
>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.

    Actually, you need to count them all, but only once.  I find myself in
Ada 95 appreciating the fact that if I have (for example) a child package
containing constructors, I have some with clauses that say:

    with Some_Abstraction;

    and others say:

    with Some_Abstraction.Creation;

    but often the spec of a package has the first, and the body the second.



                                        Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...

ATOM RSS1 RSS2