Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)

[18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ)]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<MbCdnfw97bXUF3miRVn-jA@comcast.com>...

> Anyone who argues that "with and use" is eight characters longer than 
> "use" needs a better text editor.

First, let me say that I think "with and use" is a big step forward
from double naming of library units.

The problem with it has nothing to do with eight extra characters, but
rather with the fact that it is grammatically awkward. You might say,
"use a hammer," but you would never say "with and use a hammer." I
think Ada's syntax is already awkward enough without this. I think
"with/use" is preferable, but I think "use" implies "with" is even
better.

Having said that, let me repeat that I consider "with and use"
preferable to double naming.

> > I suggest that 'with and use A.B.C;' is used, and means /exactly/ the same
> > as 'with A.B.C; use A.B.C;' (it fails if 'with A.B.C;' fails). It's too
> > confusing for 'use A.B.C;' to imply 'with A.B;'. I fear a reviewer could be
> > sent into a spin searching for a library unit named 'A.B.C'.
> 
> I agree.  From the point of view of a reader, "with and use" is a slam 
> dunk compared to use implies with.

I disagree. I think "use" implies "with" is fine, with the caveat that
it does so only if the "with" is legal. How often would this be an
issue in actual practice anyway? Not often, I suspect. Why let the
exception determine the rule?