From: porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton)
Subject: Re: Let's change semantics of "use type"
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 23:12:25 +0500
Date: 2002-11-09T03:20:29+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3dcc7efd$0$308$bed64819@news.gradwell.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3dcb8347$0$299$bed64819@news.gradwell.net
In article <wcc65v8i3lh.fsf@shell01.theworld.com>,
Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes:
>
>> I am suggesting (for the next Standard) to change the semantics of "use
>> type" so that it would make visible not only primitive _operators_, but
>> all primitive _operations_.
>
> Why not just "use" the package in which the type is declared?
> Why is this worth modifying the language?
There are many writings on why "use" package is an evil:
It may expose something unintentionally especially when
switching to a new version of a package. This unintentionally
used identifier may cause program behavior different from
intended by a not enough careful programmer (everybody).
I retell that I also suggested an alternate syntax "use all type".
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-11-08 18:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-11-08 9:20 Let's change semantics of "use type" Victor Porton
2002-11-08 12:01 ` Adrian Hoe
2002-11-08 13:38 ` Robert A Duff
2002-11-08 20:52 ` Randy Brukardt
2002-11-08 18:12 ` Victor Porton [this message]
2002-11-09 15:20 ` Robert A Duff
2002-11-11 5:28 ` Victor Porton
2002-11-11 15:22 ` Robert A Duff
2002-11-11 15:59 ` Ted Dennison
2002-11-12 8:24 ` R. Tim Coslet
2002-11-12 15:39 ` Ted Dennison
2002-11-12 18:18 ` Preben Randhol
2002-11-12 17:29 ` Victor Porton
2002-11-12 17:32 ` Victor Porton
2002-11-18 1:25 ` Richard Riehle
2002-11-19 4:13 ` Victor Porton
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox