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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,7a5b8336407bf471
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-11-11 06:44:36 PST
Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail
From: dennison@telepath.com (Ted Dennison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Safe "use" directive
Date: 11 Nov 2002 06:44:36 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Message-ID: <4519e058.0211110644.447ef8ac@posting.google.com>
References: <3dcba716$0$305$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.115.221.98
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1037025876 27309 127.0.0.1 (11 Nov 2002 14:44:36
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 11 Nov 2002 14:44:36 GMT
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:30725
Date: 2002-11-11T14:44:36+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

porton@ex-code.com (Victor Porton) wrote in message news:<3dcba716$0$305$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>...
> Use "use X" directive for a package X only if the package meets the
> following criteria:

(5 line sentence deleted)

> P.S. For packages not following this rule (e.g. some Ada.*), it is
> possible to create wrapper packages following the rule.

%-(

Wouldn't it be far simpler to just not do the "use"?

> Do you agree that it is a good rule? (Don't say: never use "use",
> I am only about the case if one uses "use".)

Sorry, but I don't agree. Once you let in the possibility that there
could be "use"s clouding things, then when something is going wrong
the maintainer *has* to go check all those other packages. He can't
count on the non-compiler enforced parts of the rules having been
followed (after all, *something* is wrong somewhere, or there wouldn't
be a problem). I'd say this is marginally better than putting no
restrictions on uses, but just marginally.