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

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

In article <3DD8419F.97C1A8@adaworks.com>,
	Richard Riehle <richard@adaworks.com> writes:
> Victor Porton wrote:
> 
>> 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_.
>>
> 
> We should be cautious about adding features to the Ada
> language that will dilute its essential power.   We should
> be wary of trying to make Ada look like something else
> in pursuit of a potentially ephemeral popularity.  Ada is
> what it is:  a language designed to enable the compiler to
> detect the maximum number of errors as early in the
> development process as possible and to continue catching
> errors during execution and over the full life-cycle of the
> maintenance process.

Well, I now completely agree that changing semantics of
"use type" was a bad idea. Now I am defending only new
"use all type" syntax for this.

[skipped]

"use all type" just introduces something mean between
"use" and dot notation. It is good for mean software systems
between small systems and large scale systems (about which
you have said).

It seems that "use all type" will increase readability and
decrease number of bugs, as I seem that programmers will
tend to "use all type" namely instead of just "use".

So I see no any real arguments against "use all type"
proposal except of a _little_ work of compiler vendors.

Well, now the time to stop the discussion. Seemingly we
have said all. I hope to find time to propose this
officially.