Re: 'with'ing and 'use'ing

[claveman@inetworld.net (Charles H. Sampson)]

     M. Rosen modestly omits that he wrote a very good paper several 
years ago arguing in favor of the use clause.  While I was already a 
strong use-phile before reading the paper, it clarified a number of 
ideas that I had understood only instinctively.  I haven't read it in 
several years but I remember the argument that fully-qualified names in-
hibit readability because the least important part of the name is on the
left, (the most significant position) and the most important part is on
the right (the least significant position).  A common argument against 
the use clause is that fully-qualified names make it easy to find an 
identifier's declaration when necessary.  M. Rosen argued that this 
wouldn't be necessary when we had environments that led us from use to 
declaration with a mouse click.  We have such environments now. 

     I've always characterized this latter argument against the use 
clause as being akin to writing a paper with each word followed by the 
page number where its definition could be found in a certain dictionary,
just in case somebody needs to know.  Not the world's greatest analogy 
but, in other words, to me it's been a lot of clutter to carry around 
for the occasional use.

     I can't remember where to find the paper, even though I'm sure I 
have one lost in the mass of papers in my office.  I think it was pub-
lished in Ada Letters.  I've poked around adahome for a few minutes and
couldn't find it there.  J-P?

                                Charlie


-- 
     To get my correct email address, replace the "claveman" by
"csampson" in my fake (anti-spam) address.