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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,4ee5611d3fbf05b7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson) Subject: Re: Enumeration literal visibility and use type Date: 1998/05/26 Message-ID: <6kf0r3$isj$1@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 356701451 References: <6kej65$dnh$1@hermes.seas.smu.edu| <6kejt5$75u@gcsin3.geccs.gecm.com> <6kensr$fqq$1@hermes.seas.smu.edu> Organization: Computer Science, The University of Melbourne Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-05-26T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: bralick@seas.smu.edu (William Bralick) writes: >John McCabe |... the "use type" clause is designed to provide >|visibility to the OPERATORS of the type, NOT the type itself so the >|behaviour you are seeing is correct. > >Yes ... and I had understood that visibility of the type name was still >restricted (one would always need to write doodah.state_value_type), but >I was convinced that the enumerals themselves would be visible to avoid >(1) the use of the "use clause" or (2) defining a series of named constants. What's wrong with (3) just using explicit module qualifiers? >So once again, I am merely asking for a reference to some documentation >that might describe _why_ OPERATORS only were made visible Because explicit module qualifiers on OPERATORS look very ugly. -- Fergus Henderson | "I have always known that the pursuit WWW: | of excellence is a lethal habit" PGP: finger fjh@128.250.37.3 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.