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: 1996/07/24 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 169778684 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-07-24T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4t33ro$l4n@newsbf02.news.aol.com> jamess1889@aol.com (JamesS1889) writes: > In article , jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) > writes: > > >A use_type clause only gives "direct" visibility to primitive _operators_ > >of the type: RM 8.4(8). > > OK. So then would someone tell me what the following meant: > > In article , > eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes: > > > 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. > > Did Robert mean what I thought he meant (in which case you are saying he > is wrong), or did he mean something else? When I read that, I thought he misspoke, because if literally taken it would mean either a) he's confused/wrong or b) only defines "operator" primitive operations for his tagged types. Neither of which seem very likely... > "Only one Earth Captain has ever survived battle with a Minbari > fleet. He is behind me. You are in front of me. If you value your > lives, be somewhere else!" -- Delenn, "Severed Dreams" One of the best scenes to ever hit the airways (or anything else for that matter!) /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com