From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mephisto!ncar!husc6!encore
From: mwever@encore (Mike Wever)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Unusual "use" semantics
Message-ID: <12435@encore.Encore.COM>
Date: 9 Aug 90 12:45:35 GMT
References: <20@polymnia.tsd.arlut.utexas.edu> <12342@hydra.gatech.EDU>
Sender: news@Encore.COM
Reply-To: mwever@encore (Mike Wever)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Encore Computer Corp
In-reply-to: jm21@prism.gatech.EDU (Jim Marks)
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

i would disagree that "good programing practice prohibits the use of the "use"
use clause". it it my understanding that the use clause was put in for infix
operator such as "=". i would submit to this group that the addition of the use 
clause to avoid the ugly case is indeed much cleaner code then without. the
abuse of the use clause has more to do with using it to avoid dotted notions
for objects, functions, procedures, and or types with are visable from the
specs of "withed" packages.

i spent a year or so looking at a 300K loc system which was written in ada. it
was very hard to understand because of the fact that the use clause was used 
to avoid dotted notions. my humble advice is then to only use the use clause to
make directly visable an infix operator, and make all other items expressly
clear by using dotted notation. when i am changing a piece of code i often
comment out the use clause and put in the dotted notions, and only put it back
in if there is an infix operator which should be directly visable.