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: 103376,794a4cb8f6cfe39b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kst@sd.aonix.com (Keith Thompson) Subject: Re: Clear Screen Date: 1997/03/05 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 223320121 Sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pulsar References: <330FE569.29FA@bix.com> <5erk3a$a29@news.cict.fr> <5f15dg$an@fozzie.sun3.iaf.nl> <3316EFA0.7970@watson.ibm.com> Organization: Aonix, San Diego, CA, USA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Originator: kst@pulsar Date: 1997-03-05T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > < (It happens that the only such declaration is the child package > Ada.Characters.Handling, and that only if you "with" it.)>> > > And that presumably is what you want, if you with it, or are you recommending > that the single use clause be replaced by two of your renamings in this case? > :-) The original discussion mentioned only Ada.Characters.Latin_1. A use clause for Ada.Characters makes Latin_1 directly visible, but it can have other side effects (especially if the implementation provides other children of Ada.Characters, like GNAT's Wide_Latin_1). One argument in favor of the renames, in this particular case, is that the name Latin_1 is far less ambiguous than Handling. As I said, I'm not recommending anything, just pointing out alternatives. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@sd.aonix.com <*> TeleSo^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsy^H^H^H^H Thomson Softw^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Aonix 10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2706 "Humor is such a subjective thing." -- Cartagia