Re: using `use' : what is the best practice ?

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 17:59:08 +0100, Simon Wright wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>> P.S. All Ada users are subdivided into use-haters and with-haters. The
>> former are in majority.
> 
> use-haters and use-lovers? Hating "with" would match pretty well with
> hating Ada, I'd have thought!

In

   with P; use P;

the "with P" is meaningless here.

"With" does not carry any useful information for the reader. You have to
manage sets of "with" as you develop your packages. I bet even most
stubborn use-haters do not take the idea of "with" seriously. Because
otherwise they would have to mention *all* implicitly or explicitly
referenced packages in "with" clauses. This mammoth task would go to waste.
Because the information to brings is null, and interesting only to the
compiler-linker. And if you are in favor of dotted names longer than the
source line, why would you need an additional "with" if the source is
already full of package names?

BTW, there is another dichotomy: child packages-haters vs. with-haters.
Package dependencies introduced by children-parent relation are more
evident and less arbitrary than ones by "with." The only problem is that
multiple parents are not allowed.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de