Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP

[jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)]

In article <31F170FC.672C@csehp3.mdc.com> "James A. Squire" <m193884@CSEHP3.MDC.COM> writes:

> Robert I. Eachus wrote:
> >
> > In article <Dup54L.2q2.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com> mg@asp.camb.inmet.com (Mitch
> >     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.
> 
> Very interesting!  Let me see if I'm reading you right:
> 
> 1.  func would have to be a primitive operation in order to be a
> dispatching call.  Right?
> 
> 2.  Therefore, func would be covered by the "use type" clause on
> <type_of_x>, right?
> 
> I liked the idea of "use type" when I thought it only referred to
> implicit operations like "&", "+", "=" (operations that I wish the Ada
> designers had made a part of the language proper so we wouldn't have any
> need for the use clause).  Now that it seems "use type" applies to all
> primitive operations (some of which are user-written, like "Handle",

A use_type clause only gives "direct" visibility to primitive _operators_
of the type: RM 8.4(8).

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
1 Williston Road, Suite 4
Belmont, MA 02178

617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com