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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!gatech!gitpyr!tynor
From: tynor@pyr.gatech.EDU (Steve Tynor)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited Use Clause
Message-ID: <6910@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: 6 Dec 88 15:36:23 GMT
References: <8812060022.AA26972@ucsd.edu>
Reply-To: tynor@pyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor)
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8812060022.AA26972@ucsd.edu> brian@telesoft.UUCP (Brian D. Nettleton @spot) writes:
>addition of a "limited" use clause.  This clause would allow
>direct visibility of only the implicit infix operators of a visible part
>of a particular package.  I do beleive this request does probably
...
>code (i.e. renaming "=" and "+" over and over again even though they have 
>the "standard" Ada definition).

But why limit this to only infix operators? How about borrowing an idea 
from Modula2?

 	with XYZ;
 	use XYZ."=", XYZ."/=", XYZ.PUSH, XYZ.POP;
 	package ...

I agree that having to either rename or explicitly use XYZ."=" (A, 1) is a
pain and tends to confuse the code more than clarify it.  

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Progress means replacing something wrong with something more subtly wrong.
                     
    Steve Tynor
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    tynor@gitpyr.gatech.edu