Re: Clause "with and use"

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<G-udnYiJ3bOJ2SuiRVn-tg@comcast.com>...
> Russ wrote:
> 
> > This whole line about "with" and "use" having different meanings is
> > completely irrelevant. I don't care if "with" sends a mouse to the
> > moon and "use" massages my feet. The simple fact is that "use" implies
> > "with," whether you like it or not. Just try to use "use" without
> > "with", and the compiler will tell you so. If I say, "use a hammer,"
> > do I need to precede it with, "obtain a hammer"? Of course not. You
> > cannot possibly "use" a hammer if one is not available.
> 
> Bzzzt! Wrong Answer, try again.  A use clasue in Ada does NOT imply that 
> there is a with around somewhere.  Try compiling:
> 
> procedure Junk is
>    use Ascii;
> begin null; end Junk;
> 
> If you have any doubts about that.

Mr. Eachus, I'll admit that my point was very unclear, perhaps even
obtuse, but I think it should have been clear that my point was *not*
what you thought it was. If I really thought that "use" literally
implies "with", then why would I be arguing that "use" should imply
"with"?

My point was as follows. If you use "use" without preceding it with
"with" (no pun intended), the compiler will obviously squawk at you.
The compiler is telling you that you should have had a "with"
statement. In other words, the compiler is telling that "use"
*requires* "with". So in a sense, it implies it. It was a poor way to
make the point. Please forget I wrote it.