Re: 'with'ing and 'use'ing

[xl@home.com]

Actually, the idea of not "Use"ing packages is quite common.  But you
are right, the effect of not pulling in the operators for defined types
can get a bit irritating.  My project saw this early on and allows the
use of the "use type xxxx;" statement to circumvent the need for the
functional notation use of operators such as ">=" etc...  The 'use type'
statement has the effect of providing visibility to all operations on
the type specified without haveing to resort to a general use clause on
the entire package surrounding the type in question.  Quite handy and
much more readable.

Robert

Roger Hoyle wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm just trying to clear something up in my head.
> 
> I'm trying to interface with a lot [a *lot* :] of Ada95 code and the rest
> of the code has a policy of not 'use'ing other packages, just 'with'ing
> them to force the full names of types & functions etc. As a result, I'm
> adopting the same attitude.
> 
> 1) Is this basically a good idea? It seems sensible to me, but then I know
>    little about Ada. (I'm asking about generally not 'use'ing stuff, not
>    specifically my current situation)
> 
> 2) One of the packages defines a sub-package called Ops, which contains
>    the operators (=,/=,>=,<=) etc for some of the types in the main
>    package. The only way I seem to be able to get access to these operators
>    is to 'use' the package. Is this right, or am I missing somehting?
> 
> Any help gratefully received.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> rog.