Re: newbie can't get exceptions to work!

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Robert A Duff wrote:
> "Marc A. Criley" <mcqada@earthlink.net> writes:
> > I was very pleased with the addition of "use type" to Ada 95, despite
> > the opinion of a some that it's an ugly addition that was included
> > merely to avoid having to write "renames" clauses for operators.  

Hmmm. I think it's ugly because it was included merely to avoid having to
write use clauses. If you're a no-use fanatic, you should be content with
not using use clauses, but no, use-phobes thinks it's OK as long as the 
infix syntax is used. So the language is butchered to handle this special
case. 

> Not only do the renames clutter -- they are also quite error prone.
> 
> Use type is better than nothing,

Nah, no change would have been fine. The syntax is nicely messed up now. 
Once "with type" is part of the standard the mess will get messier, as 
we'll have with and use, with type and use type. 

> but even that adds one line of clutter.
> IMHO, you should be able to refer to operators *anywhere*, without
> having to say anything special.

Why, what's so special about operators? Well, OK, Ada makes them a bit
special by not allowing you to define new ones (an annoying restriction
IMO) but they are just functions, right?

> You don't have to say "use" in order to
> write "X := Y"; 

":=" is special. It's not a function, and you can't redefine it, except
for very special types. Yes, I know you know all this :-). 

> why should you have to write "use" in order to write
> "if X = Y ..."?

"=" is also kind of special, right? 

Are you proposing that assignment and equality are both special enough
that no use is necessary, or are you saying all operators should be exempt 
from being use (type)-ed? 

-- Brian