From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Interesting containers problem.
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:45:04 +0200
Date: 2015-04-21T10:45:04+02:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1lju9b80gm9ry$.1rm13ahnw8j9k$.dlg@40tude.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mh51lo$kl3$1@dont-email.me
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015 10:28:32 +0200, J-P. Rosen wrote:
> Le 21/04/2015 10:06, Dmitry A. Kazakov a écrit :
>> We could introduce "checked use" as compared the "unchecked" one Ada has.
>> The difference would be that if "use P" would hide anything in the scope
>> the language would require explicit renaming. E.g.
> ???
> Use never hides anything, if something is directly visible, it stays so
> even in the presence of use clauses.
Yes, but the distinction is irrelevant for practical use. The name cannot
be used for whatever reason.
> In your example, there is "mutual hiding", which is a way of saying that
> neither declaration is directly visible (and therefore no risk of
> confusion). You are free to add renamings if you want to make something
> directly visible.
>
> So, I don't see what your syntax would bring.
It would warns early about the problem, which is very difficult to tack
later, especially with generic instantiations.
--
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-21 8:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-17 13:42 Interesting containers problem Shark8
2015-04-17 19:12 ` Peter Chapin
2015-04-17 20:45 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-04-17 21:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-04-18 17:21 ` Shark8
2015-04-19 17:10 ` brbarkstrom
2015-04-20 23:39 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-04-21 3:05 ` Randy Brukardt
2015-04-21 8:06 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov
2015-04-21 8:28 ` J-P. Rosen
2015-04-21 8:45 ` Dmitry A. Kazakov [this message]
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox