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: 103376,3dbf2f325f33ce35
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>
Subject: Re: Elimination of "use" clauses
Date: 1999/07/21
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907211854070.23477-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 503774710
References: <377B5807.88B875E0@cs.york.ac.uk> <7lh74s$v36$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <7ligdq$c8q$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <7ljb4e$na9$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <7ltus1$ah1@dfw-ixnews19.ix.netcom.com> <wccr9mc5y47.fsf@world.std.com>
 <7mrjus$bet@dfw-ixnews14.ix.netcom.com> <dale-1807991510420001@192.168.0.2>
 <7n0icj$1je@dfw-ixnews21.ix.netcom.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907191951470.25136-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <7n0ska$h20$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
 <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907201840120.500-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>
 <7n5cdr$84s$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 932609122 201 bpr@206.184.139.136
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1999-07-21T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9907201840120.500-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > Regular "use" clauses, inside of declarative regions to limit
> their scope
> > if one is worried about not being able to tell where a
> definition comes
> > from. I am not a use-phobe, though I understand that one
> should be careful
> > with use clauses (and aliasing, and overloading, and access
> types, etc.)
> 
> 
> OK, that's reasonable. But you have to realize that use type
> was introduced into the language SPECIFICALLY for people who
> reject the above solution. Since there are MANY such people,
> there was a strong constituency for this feature. I regard it
> as useless since I am quite content to use USE, but there are
> many Ada programmers adamantaly opposed to even your limited
> acceptable of use clauses.

I'm not fond of this aspect of the language design process, since there
are features that I think add something to the expressiveness of the
language which were omitted because strong constituencies abhorred them.
Also, Tucker Taft must have liked this enough to include it, so he really
is to blame. It wasn't designed by committee, you know :-). 

-- Brian