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:
Mon, 6 Nov 2000 09:12:55 -0800
Reply-To:
"C. Daniel Cooper" <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines)
Robin Reagan wrote:

> 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).

That's good advice for future code; but for code that already exists,
you can pass it through analysis tools that will add the missing name
qualifiers, permitting the USE clauses to be removed. For example, the
Ada Repair tool from Rational provides such capability.

--

C. Daniel Cooper ==========v=================v=======================v
Adv Computing Technologist | processes       | All opinions are mine |
206-655-3519               | + architectures | and may not represent |
[log in to unmask]  |   = systems     | those of my employer. |
===========================^=================^=======================^

ATOM RSS1 RSS2