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: Use use type? (Was Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel) Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 257996516 References: Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Brian Rogoff wrote: >I have always wondered about this, but I never asked. Perhaps we need a >"Design and Evolution of Ada 95" to answer some of these questions. Do >you have the values of YY, MM, and DD that I need to find the discussion >in the mrtcomments list? No, sorry, but I have enough trouble remembering both Ada 83 and Ada 95, without trying to remember all the steps in between, and their dates. ;-) The Ada 83 brain cells have already started to decay. I'm not sure, but if somebody wanted to dig, they could probably find all kinds of useful historical stuff somewhere on sw-eng.falls-church.va.us. Mrtcomments, old "Mapping Issues" and "Mapping Documents", minutes of ARG, XRG, and WG9 meetings, etc. It would be a lot of work to track it all down. In some cases, the AARM retains historical information ("We considered so-and-so, but then changed our collective mind, because..."). >> Another pet peeve: In order to use Some_Package, you say "with >> Some_Package;". > >I don't get it. Do you disagree with the choice of names for "with" and >"use", with the fact that "use" doesn't implicitly "with", or something >else altogether? The choice of names. "With" should be "use" or "uses" (the latter is from UCSD Pascal, I think). "Use" should be I-don't-know-what, but something other than "use". Then, when I say, "Package X uses package Y", you wouldn't be confused as to whether I mean "Package X makes use of package Y (i.e. X is a client of Y)", versus "There's a use_clause on package X saying 'use Y'". And we avoid the verbing of "with", as in "Package X withs package Y." (or is it "with's"?) which sounds horrible in English. "To with" ain't a verb, in English. ;-) - Bob