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: 258073068 References: Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-07-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Mon, 21 Jul 1997, Robert A Duff wrote: > In article , > Brian Rogoff wrote: > >I have always wondered about this, but I never asked. Perhaps we need a > >"Design and Evolution of Ada 95" to answer some of these questions. Do > >you have the values of YY, MM, and DD that I need to find the discussion > >in the mrtcomments list? > > No, sorry, but I have enough trouble remembering both Ada 83 and Ada 95, > without trying to remember all the steps in between, and their dates. > ;-) The Ada 83 brain cells have already started to decay. Its OK, there is a lot of stuff. I remember during the downward funarg debate that Norman Cohen managed to point out those MRT douments; that was a much more important "battle" and it was important to read the discussions (even though I still pine for a properly tail recursive Ada with downward funargs :-) > > I'm not sure, but if somebody wanted to dig, they could probably find > all kinds of useful historical stuff somewhere on > sw-eng.falls-church.va.us. Mrtcomments, old "Mapping Issues" and > "Mapping Documents", minutes of ARG, XRG, and WG9 meetings, etc. It > would be a lot of work to track it all down. In some cases, the AARM > retains historical information ("We considered so-and-so, but then > changed our collective mind, because..."). This stuff should be HTML-ified for future generations. > >I don't get it. Do you disagree with the choice of names for "with" and > >"use", with the fact that "use" doesn't implicitly "with", or something > >else altogether? > > The choice of names. "With" should be "use" or "uses" (the latter is > from UCSD Pascal, I think). "Use" should be I-don't-know-what, but > something other than "use". Then, when I say, "Package X uses package > Y", you wouldn't be confused as to whether I mean "Package X makes use > of package Y (i.e. X is a client of Y)", versus "There's a use_clause on > package X saying 'use Y'". And we avoid the verbing of "with", as in > "Package X withs package Y." (or is it "with's"?) which sounds horrible > in English. "To with" ain't a verb, in English. ;-) OK, I guess I thought about it a bit, but got used to it quickly. Spelling issues don't bug me as much as semantic issues. -- Brian