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: 2003-11-17 11:40:26 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: 17 Nov 2003 11:40:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0311171140.3aaeb7fa@posting.google.com>
References: <bormns$1i4d87$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <bebbba07.0311122326.690bd121@posting.google.com>
 <bp0nqn$afi$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <bebbba07.0311132145.58a4541e@posting.google.com>
 <bp22op$1ltd$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
 <bebbba07.0311141523.3c523f8c@posting.google.com>
 <G-udnYiJ3bOJ2SuiRVn-tg@comcast.com> <3FB6513B.DA6E53CA@fakeaddress.nil>
 <X7idnWUKxp8GIyuiRVn-vg@comcast.com>
 <si2hrv4oshllsa65dvrknrq2oabjs2r00a@4ax.com>
 <UJ6dnbqzUrXhQCWiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1069098026 18925 127.0.0.1 (17 Nov 2003 19:40:26
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 19:40:26 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2585
Date: 2003-11-17T11:40:25-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<UJ6dnbqzUrXhQCWiRVn-gQ@comcast.com>...
> 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?

Not being an Ada programmer, I did not even know off the top of my
head that "with Foo.Bar" is illegal. I'm at work, and my Ada books are
at home, so let me ask a "newbie" question. Am I correct in assuming
that "use Foo.Bar" *must* be preceded by "with Foo"? More
specifically, am I correct in assuming that "use Foo.<anything>"
*must* be preceded by "with Foo"?

If so, then the solution seems trivial to me. Let any occurence of
"use Foo.<anything>" in the context section imply "with Foo". That is,
for any "use" in the context section, simply take its argument and
strip off the first "." and anything that follows it, then use that as
the argument to the implied "with".

If not, I guess I just made a fool of myself. Oh well.