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: 1997/08/01
Message-ID: <EE8qpI.6s8@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 261337272
References: <JSA.97Jul18144029@alexandria.organon.com>
 <5r64cq$meh@peg.apc.org> <JSA.97Jul24162754@alexandria.organon.com>
 <5rrr5a$dds$2@peuplier.wanadoo.fr>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-01T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <5rrr5a$dds$2@peuplier.wanadoo.fr>,
J-P. Rosen <Rosen.Adalog@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>I do not agree. When I go walking, I take some food WITH me. I open the box
>when I want to USE it.
>
>The whole idea of the use clause is that often, you don't need a  withed
>package everywhere. If I write -say- a complex number package with a Put
>function, I have to with Text_IO; however I use it only in the Put
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>function. The use clause is intended to do just that: open visibility only
>in places where the package is really used.

Perhaps you mean, "I have to take Text_IO WITH me."  ;-)
At least that's syntactically correct English, unlike "I have to with
Text_IO".  (Either way, I don't mind anthropomorphizing the code.)

To me, "Package Complex_Numbers uses Text_IO" and "Package
Complex_Numbers uses Text_IO only within its Put procedure" and
"Procedure Complex_Numbers.Put uses Text_IO" all make sense in plain
English, and do not necessarily imply a use_clause.  I mean, one way to
use Text_IO is to say "Text_IO.Put(...)".

>THIS means that in general, it is a bad idea to put the use clause on top
>of the pakage, except if you really use the package everywhere.
>Unfortunately, this was the case for every example in RM83, and people
>tended to do it systematically, and then complained that things got visible
>even when not used...
>
>For more details, refer to "In defense of the USE clause" in Ada letters,
>Nov. 87.
>
>This note is NOT intended to restart the old debate about the use clause
>;-)

Hmm.  *I* was just complaining about the reserved word used.  *You're*
the one who inserted the above arguments about if/when it's good to use
these features.

- Bob