From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Subject: Re: Safe "use" directive
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:57:23 -0800
Date: 2002-11-18T01:49:57+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3DD84903.3F7C6AF4@adaworks.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: mailman.1037138642.3236.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org
Gautier direct_replies_not_read wrote:
> Changing the meaning of "use X" would be a bit stupid IMHO (discussed)
> but why not adding a "use limited X" ?
> - "limited" is already an Ada keyword
I wonder if extending the semantics of the word "limited" might
not add to the confusion. At present, limited has very strict
meaning and any new use of it ought to correspond closely
(in fact, exactly) to the current semantics.
Richard Riehle
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-18 1:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-12 22:03 Safe "use" directive Gautier direct_replies_not_read
2002-11-18 1:57 ` Richard Riehle [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-11-08 11:53 Victor Porton
2002-11-08 17:18 ` Peter Richtmyer
2002-11-09 10:36 ` Gautier
2002-11-11 14:44 ` Ted Dennison
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox