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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fce663eaf40b52f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!newsfeed.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!rip.MISMATCH!atl-c02.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:42:52 -0500 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: Subject: Re: Manifesto against Vector Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 14:42:56 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4807.1700 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4910.0300 Message-ID: <9cadnQ6PhYWg4z_dRVn-sA@megapath.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-nUcSlM1sTcbMfHH9Mmzfyzy03nj8YZlJStOdTCES+rwlxS8xj5EhRu0gDdSKbsR01Nn4LvS82/ra3qr!UNiBSdp1ZsUR3UteFbtBraUPx1/g2o+EvcD+lkF6TdNJpJrbfQC5m4UAiVGZkIH+wuPKgYZT+UIH X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.1 Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:508 Date: 2004-05-12T14:42:56-05:00 List-Id: "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message news:bebbba07.0405062115.2685ca1b@posting.google.com... ... > > So why should the ARG study to make sure something _you_ > > might not have thought of _could_ break existing code, modify > > the Reference Manual, and make all the compiler vendors change > > compiler code? > > I'd like to know how "with/use" could *possibly* break existing code. > > And you're worried about modifying the Reference Manual? For Pete's > sake, I'll write the two sentences it will take. Here you go: > > The new keyword "with/use", when it appears in a context section, is a > convenient shorthand for combining "with" and "use" without repeating > the library unit name. For example, > > with/use Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO; > > is equivalent to > > with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO, > Ada.Integer_Text_IO; > > except that it is shorter, cleaner, less error prone, and easier to > read. No good. Too much useless verbiage, and it depends on an equivalence. Equivalences almost never work; we avoid them if at all possible. (The ARG spends a lot of time fixing problems caused by equivalences that aren't - for instance, truncating Stream_IO files). In any case, we discussed something like 4 problems with this proposal in the past. None of them are insurmountable, but they simply aren't worth the effort (which is substantial). And since the the Ada 2005 effort is substantially voluteer, the effort does matter. In any case, no syntax tweaks are going to have the slightest impact on Ada's use/popularity. If people can adjust to gibberish syntax like Lisp and C++, they certainly can handle a few quirks in Ada. Bigger issues will make the difference, and few, if any of them have anything to do with the language standard. Randy.