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=1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!cornell!batcomputer!itsgw!steinmetz!uunet!cme!leake
From: leake@cme.nbs.gov (Stephe Leake)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Limited Use Clause
Message-ID: <784@marvin.cme.nbs.gov>
Date: 7 Dec 88 18:12:10 GMT
References: <8812061626.AA13093@ajpo.sei.cmu.edu> <7311@claris.com>
Organization: National Institute of Standards & Technology, Gaithersburg, MD
In-reply-to: peirce@claris.com's message of 7 Dec 88 01:43:08 GMT
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <7311@claris.com> peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) writes:

   ... The only complaint we really heard from people
   was about the "problem" with having to explictly rename the "=" operator
   and such.

If I go to all the effort to define operators for an abstract type
(say matrices), why should everyone have to rename them? The problem
is not with use clauses; the problem is with adequate managment. It is
much easier for managers to say "NO!" than to say "Well, I guess I
have to make a reasonable decision in each case". Judicious use of use
clauses definitely makes code more readable; injudicious use is bad.
What is required is careful thought, not automatic reactions.

Stephe Leake 	(301) 975-3431 		leake@cme.nbs.gov
National Institute of Standards and Technology
(formerly National Bureau of Standards)
Rm. B-124, Bldg. 220
Gaithersburg, MD  20899