Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP

[jamess1889@aol.com (JamesS1889)]

In article <Duwu74.L3n@world.std.com>, bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A
Duff) writes:

>Your earlier impression was correct.  "Use type" only works for
>(primitive) operators, like "&", "+", etc.  It does not work for
>operations called "func" or whatever.

Then I'm confused about something.  See below.  Meanwhile...

>An earlier version of Ada 9X proposed to make primitive operators
>automatically visible -- sort of as if "use type" were always there by
>magic.  However, this would have been upward incompatible in some rare
>cases.  The "use type" feature was invented as a compromise.

I'm amazed they did think of it - good for them.  But that's not what I
was talking about.

In article <JSA.96Jul22154610@alexandria>, jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
writes:

>A use_type clause only gives "direct" visibility to primitive _operators_
>of the type: RM 8.4(8).

OK.  So then would someone tell me what the following meant:

In article <EACHUS.96Jul19102232@spectre.mitre.org>,
eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

>    My rule is to always "use type" dispatching types.  The names you
>no longer have to qualify are the ones where the qualification would
>be misleading.

Did Robert mean what I thought he meant (in which case you are saying he
is wrong), or did he mean something else?

Enquiring minds want to know...

James Squire                                      
mailto:ja_squire@csehp3.mdc.com
MDA Avionics Tools & Processes
McDonnell Douglas Aerospace              http://www.mdc.com
Opinions expressed here are my own and NOT my company's
"Only one Earth Captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari fleet.  He
is behind me.
You are in front of me.  If you value your lives, be somewhere else!"
           -- Delenn, "Severed Dreams"