Re: Clause "with and use"

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net>]

Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:

> Exactly the same Ada would do. The effect should be defined to be
> literally same as for:
> 
> with Foo; use Foo; with Bar; use Bar;
> 
> So Foo.Bar cannot play any role here. Note that the proposal says
> *implies* "with Bar;". After all Foo.Bar cannot be "with"-ed and thus
> cannot be implied.

And that is exactly the problem.  I am sorry you don't see it.  The with 
clause has an effect on visibility that includes the use clause. 
Current use clauses have a different scope.  So if I see:

with Foo; use Foo.Bar;

which is currently legal and meaningful, what does your proposal do?

The only choices I see are:

1) The new rule you are proposing makes lots of existing legal Ada 
programs illegal.

2) That use clauses in context clauses are interpreted specially.  First 
applying one set of visibility and name resolution rules, then if that 
fails silently applying another.

3) Retain the current meaning of a use clause in a context clause, and 
add a new context clause choice (I have been using "with and use") that 
has the new meaning.

To me option 1) is something that simply won't happen without a clear 
and convincing need, and case 2) is worse.  Do you have an option 4) 
that I am unaware of?  If not maybe you can now see why I think the 
choice is between some veriation of 3) and no change.

-- 
                                           Robert I. Eachus

100% Ada, no bugs--the only way to create software.