Re: Let's change semantics of "use type"

[porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton)]

In article <wccwunmg477.fsf@shell01.theworld.com>,
	Robert A Duff <bobduff@shell01.TheWorld.com> writes:
> porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) writes:
> 
>> 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_.
> 
> My point was that changing the syntax from "use P;" to "use all P.T;"
> won't eliminate the supposed "dangers" of use clauses.  Most packages
> contain a type, plus operations on the type, so the two syntaxes mean
> *almost* the same thing, in practice.

"use all type" is namely against such the packages which contain 
something other among operations on a type and also against such
packages which define several types.

Consider also packages which define operations on class wide types.
"use"ing such a package may be dangerous as it may bring operations
on a not supposed concrete types.

Well, which dangers "use all type" has? Personally I when deal with
a type almost always want all its primitive operations. Getting all
primitive operations of a type seems nearly safe.

Also both standartizing and implementing "use all type" would be
*very* simple. Why not?