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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Brian Rogoff Subject: Re: Use use type? (Was Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and Eiffel) Date: 1997/07/21 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 258069524 References: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On 21 Jul 1997, Robert Dewar wrote: > Brian says > > < it was a mistake, but my mind has been changed on important Ada issues > (downard funargs :-) after I read the discussions. > >> > If you think "use type" was a mistake you have to tell us > > (a) why you think that using "use type" makes programs harder to read. We > are not particularly interested if your main reason for thinking it is a > mistake is that it makes programs a (little bit) harder to write. It doesn't. > (b) you have to suggest an alternative. Making operators automatically > visible is not just a serious incomaptibility with Ada 83, it is also > a significant design shift. The intention in Ada is very deliberately > that things are NOT directly visible unless either used, or declared > in the current unit. Violating this principle is not something to be > done lightly, and again, you would have to explain why a change here > would make it easier to read programs. Well, why introduce it at all, when a use clause will use-ually suffice? It doesn't seem to me (I like regular old use) that it buys you anything, and you end up treating the primitive operators as "special", something which you said you didn't like. So I retreat from the position of advocating making primitive operators always visible, but continue to think of use type as useless, and use use. -- Brian