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!mailrus!uflorida!gatech!gitpyr!tynor
From: tynor@pyr.gatech.EDU (Steve Tynor)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited Use Clause
Message-ID: <6962@pyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: 19 Dec 88 14:17:14 GMT
References: <4168@enea.se>
Reply-To: tynor@pyr.UUCP (Steve Tynor)
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <4168@enea.se> sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) writes:

>>>> 	use XYZ."=", XYZ."/=", XYZ.PUSH, XYZ.POP;

>>>   use XYZ."="(a, b : XYZ_type), XYZ.Push(x : some_type) ...

>>This is going one step further than I suggested. I'm not convinced that it's
>>truly necessary. I still think importing identifiers (if they're overloaded
>>you get all of them) would be a useful, relatively easily implemented
>>addition to the language.

>Of course a matter of taste, but I think mentioning a name and getting 
>all subprograms with that name is a very non-Ada way of approaching
>things. In Ada a subprogram *is* identified by its name and its parameter
>list.

I took as my precedent the INLINE pragma.  I can say:
   pragma INLINE (PUSH);
but I can't say:
   pragma INLINE (PUSH (x : some_type));

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
No problem is so formidable that you can't just walk away from it.
                     
    Steve Tynor
    Georgia Tech Research Institute
    tynor@gitpyr.gatech.edu