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=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,57516221cb3ae9f3,start
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1995-01-12 14:21:12 PST
Path: 
 nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!psuvax1!uwm.edu!news.alpha.net!news.mathworks.com!panix!cmcl2!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!thecourier.cims.nyu.edu!nobody
From: dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: string literals
Date: 12 Jan 1995 17:21:12 -0500
Organization: Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences
Message-ID: <3f4a0o$khv@gnat.cs.nyu.edu>
References: <cary-110195174515@macsac09.esl.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gnat.cs.nyu.edu
Date: 1995-01-12T17:21:12-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"but don't want to use [the package with character literals]"

why on earth not? this is what use is for! There is a certain style of
Ada question that goes like:

   How do I do X without using Y

where Y is exactly the feature intended to support X. Most odd!

If you are worried that the use clause would clutter up the name space, a
nice way of doing things is to put the definition of the character type 
into a nested package:

   package Stuff is
      ...
      package Char_Type_Package is
         type Char_Type is ( ....
      end Char_Type_Package;
   end Stuff;

now you can just say use Stuff.Char_Type_Package and you have access to the
literals.