From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7a5b8336407bf471
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-17 17:49:58 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newsfeed.news2me.com!newsfeed2.earthlink.net!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthlink.net!stamper.news.atl.earthlink.net!harp.news.atl.earthlink.net!not-for-mail
From: Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safe "use" directive
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2002 17:57:23 -0800
Organization: AdaWorks Software Engineering
Message-ID: <3DD84903.3F7C6AF4@adaworks.com>
References: <mailman.1037138642.3236.comp.lang.ada@ada.eu.org>
Reply-To: richard@adaworks.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 41.b2.40.49
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Server-Date: 18 Nov 2002 01:49:57 GMT
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I)
X-Accept-Language: en
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:31019
Date: 2002-11-18T01:49:57+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

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