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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: "use" clauses and Ada 95 OOP Date: 1996/07/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169564742 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <31F170FC.672C@csehp3.mdc.com> "James A. Squire" writes: > Robert I. Eachus wrote: > > > > In article 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 > , 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