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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,89cb2d7ffc7421c9
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.germany.com!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: Ripple effect
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <xF4Hg.924524$084.568220@attbi_s22>
 <wccirk3zqm6.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <ZpXKg.125106$FQ1.9495@attbi_s71>
 <wccejurbj6i.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <fm5Lg.947292$084.573762@attbi_s22>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 09:23:22 +0200
Message-ID: <apkh8ixcr085.1n4nke0eagzuh.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 05 Sep 2006 09:23:21 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: bb05b806.newsspool4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=^BY;NN>SiXI0YVY]kmLTlD4IUK<Cl32<A4Fo<]lROoRAdKGeD<Do^FKbaAa;;QWg5K[6LHn;2LCVN7enW;^6ZC`DF0oL<hNO29KL`XEOk^>oYO
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:6453
Date: 2006-09-05T09:23:21+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Tue, 05 Sep 2006 02:33:47 GMT, Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:

> OK. In the discussion, your language used "use" in context clauses as 
> equivalent to Ada's "with" (which sounds like a good idea), and you 
> didn't show any equivalent to Ada's "use". I thought I recalled you 
> saying that the language didn't have one, but I guess IDRC.
> 
> If you do have an equivalent to Ada's "use", maybe it should be called 
> "see".

You don't need it, if the language offers constructs to handle namespaces,
especially to compose them out of existing ones. Then you could merge
specifications of several packages into a new specification and re-use it
where needed. 

>> Yes.  Do you think it should be otherwise? [transitive context clauses]
> 
> It seems awkward. We're working on a project. I create package B, which 
> has "with A;" on it. I thought B would need it, but I was wrong, and 
> forgot to remove it. You're developing C and need to use B, so you have 
> "with B;" on C. Then you realize you need to use A and write some code 
> that references A. You forget to put "with A;" on C, but it compiles OK 
> because B references A. Then I clean up B and remove the reference to A 
> from it. Now C doesn't compile. That seems undesirable.

You complain that missing "with" could be a lie, but it so anyway. I think
that management of non-transitive "with" is an unnecessary burden. If you
have 20+ packages, then it becomes unrealistic to inspect all with-clauses
each time you change something.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de