Re: Clause "with and use"

[Marin David Condic <nobody@noplace.com>]

Obviously, there are limited resources for modifying Ada compilers. 
Obviously, there is a large corpus of existing Ada code that must not be 
broken by language-rule changes. Just as obviously, there are 
implications that are not intuitively obvious to the casual observer 
when adding something like the infamous "+=" or now the "with and use". 
Hence, it ought to be obvious that any proposed language change had 
better have some significant food-value associated with it to make it 
worth the research time into implications, the compiler changes 
necessary and the possible risk to breaking any existing code. I don't 
see any big advantages in what has been proposed here - not enough to 
make it worth the effort.

It would be more productive to figure out if there is some major 
shortcoming in Ada or some major capabilities that Ada could use rather 
than worry about relatively trivial syntax changes that don't address 
some gaping hole in Ada's capabilities.

MDC

Preben Randhol wrote:
> 
> And you are reflexively promoting any new change no matter what the
> change is. Sure I don't want to have a lot of trivial non-important
> changes to the language. Why? Because I want changes that really do
> matter and which will make the language richer.
> 


-- 
======================================================================
Marin David Condic
I work for: http://www.belcan.com/
My project is: http://www.jsf.mil/NSFrames.htm

Send Replies To: m   o   d   c @ a   m   o   g
                    c   n   i       c   .   r

     "Trying is the first step towards failure."
         --  Homer Simpson

======================================================================