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!ames!claris!peirce
From: peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited Use Clause
Message-ID: <7311@claris.com>
Date: 7 Dec 88 01:43:08 GMT
References: <8812061626.AA13093@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu>
Reply-To: peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce)
Organization: Claris Corporation, Mountain View CA
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <8812061626.AA13093@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> rracine@AJPO.SEI.CMU.EDU writes:
>Yet again the "use" clause is maligned.
>
>That is beginning to be the same as the statement "Ada tasking is too slow."
>People have said it so long (since it used to be true) that it is accepted
>without any arguments.  Why not use the unrestricted 'use'?  The only
>reason I have heard that can not be refuted is that it makes it hard to tell
>where to find things in source code.  
>allow one to find references to identifiers.
>
>I hope this generates some discussion.
>
>Roger Racine
>C. S. Draper Laboratory, Inc.

OK, I'll bite.  The project I worked on had a "NO USES" rule.  We did this
for readability and maintainability reasons.  Having a routine referred to
as PKG.PROC made it perfectly unambiguous.  It wasn't a matter of not having
cross references at the end of a listing (the DEC compiler we were using
had a way to get these).  The only complaint we really heard from people
was about the "problem" with having to explictly rename the "=" operator
and such.

I'd support the "NO USES" rule on another Ada project without reservations.

-- michael