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,ad62d6b425bebfec X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP Date: 1996/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169290221 references: <31F170FC.672C@csehp3.mdc.com> organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <31F170FC.672C@csehp3.mdc.com>, James A. Squire wrote: >I liked the idea of "use type" when I thought it only referred to >implicit operations like "&", "+", "=" (operations that I wish the Ada >designers had made a part of the language proper so we wouldn't have any >need for the use clause). Your earlier impression was correct. "Use type" only works for (primitive) operators, like "&", "+", etc. It does not work for operations called "func" or whatever. An earlier version of Ada 9X proposed to make primitive operators automatically visible -- sort of as if "use type" were always there by magic. However, this would have been upward incompatible in some rare cases. The "use type" feature was invented as a compromise. - Bob