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: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)
Subject: Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP
Date: 1996/07/19
Message-ID: <EACHUS.96Jul19102232@spectre.mitre.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 168866446
references: <Dup54L.2q2.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-07-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <Dup54L.2q2.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> mg@asp.camb.inmet.com (Mitch Gart) writes:

  > It seems to me that this notation is misleading because a reader might
  > think that the function in pkg1 will be executed.  

  > Therefore with tagged types I have adopted the style of always using
  > "use" clauses and writing the call

  >     func(x);

  > in the source code.  This seems less misleading to me.  I never used to
  > use "use" clauses in Ada 83 but I now use them a lot in Ada 95 when 
  > calling dispatching operations.

  > Have other people adopted this style?  Comments?  People who have written
  > coding standards which say "don't use 'use' clauses", do you think this
  > rule is still a good idea with Ada 95 dispatching?

    My rule is to always "use type" dispatching types.  The names you
no longer have to qualify are the ones where the qualification would
be misleading.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...