Re: Clause "with and use"

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<bp4dnh$r7q$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> news:bebbba07.0311141523.3c523f8c@posting.google.com...

> If the use clauses couldn't be used in declaration section, I wouldn't
> object to having use clauses imply with clauses.
> As is, doing so will add an inconsistency to the language.

I don't see any inconsistency. The rule would be simple: "use" implies
"with" if it is in the context section, otherwise it doesn't. Or, to
put it another way, "use" implies "with", but any externally
referenced package must appear in the context section in either a
"use" or a "with" statement. Where is the inconsistency?

If I wanted to be unreasonable, I could claim that the current Ada
rules are inconsistent because both "with" and "use" are allowed in
the context section, but only "use" is allowed after the context
section. That's superficially inconsistent, but it's not significantly
inconsistent because, as you said yourself, "with" and "use" have
different purposes.

> > You are confusing two different issues here. One issue is what *you*
> > consider good programming practice, and the other issue is what the
> > language allows or should allow. *You* don't think that "use" should
> > ever be used in the context section at the top of a file. Sorry, Ada
> > allows it, and many excellent programmers consider it perfectly
> > acceptable in many cases.
> 
> Ha! You don't know my opinion on use clauses in context sections.  I never
> said that people should not put them in the context section of a unit.   I
> said that if people use them in their appropriate(using rational judgment)
> place (which can be at the top of the file).

So I misunderstood your position or mistook it for that of someone
else. It was an honest mistake.

> Nice use of begging the question!
> 
> > But since you don't like that particular feature, you want to keep it
> > as inconvenient as possible to use. Well, isn't that just a bit
> > self-centered? I and others would like to be able to use this
> > officially blessed language feature, but we don't want to have to jump
> > through unnecessary hoops to use it.
> 
> Ah, here comes the unwarranted character assassination that follows the
> begging of the question ;)

Character assassination? The simple fact is that my proposal would not
force you to do anything you don't want to do. Neither you nor anyone
else would need to change a single character in any of Ada source
file. But your insistence of the status quo would prevent me and
others from writing less-cluttered code.

> > Neglecting to floss your teeth is bad practice. Maybe hotels should
> > not let you check in unless you show them that you are carrying dental
> > floss. What harm could it do? I'll tell you what harm it could do. It
> > could drive away clients, even ones who carry dental floss, because
> > people don't like to be micro-managed.
> >
> 
> Come on.  I was trying to have a rational argument with you; however, I see
> that this is unlikely.

Oh, I see. What was that about "character assassination" again?

> All I am saying is that allowing use clauses in context clause to imply with
> clauses creates an inconsistency in the language.   The designers of Ada did
> a very good job of keeping inconsistencies out of the language, which I one
> of the characteristics I enjoy about Ada.  In my opinion reducing of a
> potential clutter idea(of which I am still not convinced is a clutter
> issue), is not worth introducing an inconsistency to the language.
> 
> >
> > > When you speak in public, you are expected to remain civil.   To do
> > > otherwise is simply a negative statement about your character, but I
>  will
> > > let you worry about your public image.
> >
> > Where were you when I was called an "idiot" and a "dumbass" without
> > provocation, right here on this forum? I could have used your wisdom
> > then.
> 
> I was elsewhere.  Of course my statement applies to those who might have
> been uncivil to you.  However, I would note that when I browse through this
> newsgroup , your lack of civility sticks out like a sore thumb.

Thank you for the lecture in civility, Saint Chad. I'm happy to know
that you will be there to chastise the next person who insults me.
Just for the record, I have apologized for my admittedly rude remarks
in the past, but nobody has apologized to me for equally offensive
remarks.

> Let's look at the facts (as written in the newsgroups):
> 
> You proclaimed that you do not program as a profession.
> You proclaimed that you have not written a serious project in Ada.

Oh, I see. Only professional Ada programmers are competent to comment
on Ada, eh? No, I am not a programmer or software engineer by
training, but you better believe that I have done significant
programming and been paid for it. I am one of those rare non-Ada
programmers who recognizes the value of Ada, and look at how much
respect I get from you and others, Saint Chad.

> Yet you proclaim that you know best for a language in which you have not
> spent a serious effort to understand and appreciate.  I asked you how you
> were qualified to determine when use clause are clutter. and  you failed to
> answer that important question.  Since few of your argument are supportable,
> I ask you again.  What are your qualification to comment on clutter in Ada?

I have read much (most?) of Cohen's encyclopedic book on Ada (in my
spare time), and I have written some small but non-trivial Ada
programs just to familiarize myself with the language. Also, about ten
years ago, I led the development of an experimental real-time DGPS/INS
precision landing guidance system in C++. As far as I am concerned,
that way overqualifies me to comment on "with" and "use".

Tell me, Saint Chad, what qualifications you think I need to make such
comments? And next time I post, I'll be sure to check with you.