Re: How do I avoid 'use' in this case?

[eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)]

val@fcom.cc.utah.edu (Val Kartchner) writes:

>I know that the usage of 'use' is discouraged.  I generally agree, but I do
>not see a way around it in this case.  Is there something that I'm missing?

>We have a package called 'FIELD_DEF' which (among other things) defines a
>variant record type and an access type for referencing it.  Here is the
>text of the errors generated for one of the lines:

>-- Begin included text

> 2693             if (comm_addr_group(i,j) /= NULL) then
>..........................................1
>%ADAC-E-NOTDECLOPOPND, (1) /= is not declared for the given operands [LRM 4.5]
>%ADAC-I-SUPPLOPARGTYPE, (1) Result type of the first (or only) operand of /= is
>        access type field_type_ptr in field_def at line 180
>%ADAC-I-POSSUSECALL1, (1) Possibly a selected component of (or use clause for)
>        package field_def in field_def at line 167 is intended; this would make
>        implicit binary operator /= (field_type_ptr; field_type_ptr) returning
>        BOOLEAN declared in field_def at line 180 visible for a legal call

>-- End included text

>I followed the implied suggestion of the (VAX/VMS) Ada compiler and inserted
>a "use FIELD_DEF;" statement.  I know that with non-operator functions (i.e.:
>functions who's names are alphanumeric + '_'), you can use the package name
>to avoid 'use'.  As far as I know, there is no equivalent for operators.


Use rename instead.
Like this:

        function "/="(A,B:Foo) return boolean renames field_def."/=";

You could do field_def. "/="from the beginning, but that`s not so convinient.


HTH

cheers
--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I like maxims that don't encourage behaviour modification." -- Calvin