Re: Why both "with" and "use"?

[bill@nospam.com]

In article <m3ogmxuctb.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>, Matthew says...
 
>
>Perhaps I am being pedantic, but I don't regard a package as part of a
>type.  

No, you are not being pedantic. I think this is the correct way to look
at too.

>The package is just syntactic overhead necessary to
>identify the primitive operations, but the package itself is not part of
>the type.
>
>When they give me a bag at the supermarket to hold my groceries, it's the
>groceries that I am interested in, not the bag.  If I were to make a
>list of the things I picked up at the store, I probably wouldn't include
>the bag in that list.

Nice way to express this idea.

This makes it also sound you'll be happy with the 'namespace' construct
in C++. Many people use a namespace to inclose in it other classes or
even other namespaces, to help organize the contents of the
"supermarket" bag.

actually I like the 'namespace' more than the Java package. Java packages
are also physically tied to directory structure, which is annoying to me, i.e.
package A.B.PackageX, must live is  A/B/PackageX  directory somewhere on
the disk. While Ada packages and C++ namespaces has nothing to do with
where the actuall code can be found.

I think Java did it that way to help the JVM located the bytecode file at
run-time.

Bill