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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-15 21:55:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" Date: 15 Nov 2003 21:55:34 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1068962134 843 127.0.0.1 (16 Nov 2003 05:55:34 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 05:55:34 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2533 Date: 2003-11-15T21:55:34-08:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" wrote in message news:... > 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.