From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.5-pre1 (2020-06-20) on
	ip-172-31-74-118.ec2.internal
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_20,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.5-pre1
Date: 8 Jun 93 21:12:34 GMT
From: cis.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!
rpi!news.crd.ge.com!e7sa!groleau@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU  (Wes Groleau X7574)
Subject: Re: ADA NAME SPACE (WAS:
Message-ID: <C8BMwz.5L3@crdnns.crd.ge.com>
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>On 2 Jun 93, Robert Dewar posted to All:
>RD. The trouble is that if you design a package with names chosen to be
>  . appropriate if the package is used, then when people import it into an
>  . environment where, for whatever reasons, the use of use is restricted, the
y
>  . end up with horrible names.

On the other hand, horrible names also result when one chooses to NOT put the
most reasonable on a package or it's component merely because they're ugly
when put together.  My work around is to name the packages to accurately 
identify their purpose, name components so that they make sense without
dot-notation, and if code is too ugly as a result, use LOCAL renames.

In article <1554.237.uupcb@nitelog.com> michael.hagerty@nitelog.com (Michael Ha
gerty)  writes:
>In my work environment, the use of use is restricted to "no use"...

Are you saying you are forced to write  

    X := "*" ( A, B );

???