Re: Don't use the "use" clause

[Peter Amey <peter.amey@praxis-cs.co.uk>]

Martin Dowie wrote:
> Stephen Leake wrote:
> 
>>>Right. The OP might want to use SPARK, which does not have use
>>>clauses.
>>
>>That seems odd. What does SPARK gain by outlawing use clauses? Surely
>>the examiner can handle the extra name resolution!
> 
> 
> But the human reader can't handle the extra name resolution! :-)
> 

I haven't followed all of this thread but do wonder if poor initial name 
choice is sometimes a driver for the desire to employ "use"?  I think 
the original topic was Ada Quality and Style so naming may be on topic 
anyway.

I think the trick is to choose names knowing that they will be read in 
sequences separated by dots.  Then the desire to strip away chunks of 
the name becomes less pressing.

I often see (ghastly) things like:

Engine_Sensor_Class.Engine_Speed_Sensors.Turbine_Speed.Read_Turbine_Speed

no wonder people want to employ use clauses to shorten it!

If instead we had:

Sensors.Speed.Turbine.Get

then a use clause is less useful and might even be positively misleading.

A side benefit of banning "use" (but not "use type") which we do in 
SPARK, is it encourages this kind of naming because nobody ever has to 
worry about what a name might look like with bits of it missing.

Peter