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: 103376,6cb2525ffbfe23ce
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Samuel Mize <smize@imagin.net>
Subject: Re: Why both "with" and "use"?
Date: 1999/02/16
Message-ID: <7acj53$1vu@news3.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 445065866
References: <36C5B28C.F32C43A4@jps.net> <m2socaxfjw.fsf@wf-rch.cirr.com>
 <m3lni1ucb9.fsf@mheaney.ni.net>
Organization: ImagiNet Communications, Ltd.
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981002 ("Phobia") (UNIX) (AIX/3-2)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-02-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Matthew Heaney <matthew_heaney@acm.org> wrote:
> Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org> writes:

>> But in most cases, being able to know the package the item is declared
>> in is quite useful.

> Yes, this is true, but not using a use clause isn't the only way to
> effect this goal.  Careful naming conventions make the origin of the
> entity obvious, in spite of the presence of a use clause.

[example snipped]

> These days, I hardly ever don't use a use clause, and I've formed the
> tentative opinion that Ada should have defined the with clause to have
> the semantics of both with and use.

I concur that the use clause is under-used and over-maligned.

I do find it useful sometimes to be able to "with" a package without
"using" it, to control namespaces and prevent annoying collisions.

Overall, I'd just prefer that a "use" statement in a context clause
implied the corresponding "with" statement.

Best,
Sam Mize