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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel Date: 1997/07/19 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257694448 References: Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Jon S Anthony wrote: >I quite agree. What I found odd (at best) about the "use type" thing >in Ada95 was that it doesn't really "use type" - you only get the >operators - a kind of "half-use type". What *I* find odd is that in something like: while X /= null loop ... X := X.Next; end loop; I can see "null" and ":=" without any use_clause, but I can't see "/=". And if I don't like use_clauses, the way to get visibility on "/=" is to rename "="! (Or else to use the intolerably horrible Package_Name."/=".) (Actually, I'm not use_clause-phobic.) By the way, "use type" was a compromise. The language designers originally wanted to make primitive operators directly visible always. But that would have been slightly upward incompatible. So we settled on "use type". >... As it is, I find that "use" is still the clearest >thing to do... I have mixed feelings. But I do think it's unfortunate that both opinions exist, because it harms reusability -- you tend to choose different names for things in a package, depending on whether you expect clients to use use. Another pet peeve: In order to use Some_Package, you say "with Some_Package;". - Bob