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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-26 12:09:20 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference) Date: 26 Dec 2003 12:09:20 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com> <3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072469360 6292 127.0.0.1 (26 Dec 2003 20:09:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 20:09:20 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3827 Date: 2003-12-26T12:09:20-08:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote in message news:<3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com>... > I don't know how difficult it would be in reality - to some extent that > may be compiler-dependent. The point is, the cost isn't "Zero", the > problem it purports to fix doesn't look like a problem - or at least a > trivial problem and given the limited resources there are available for > standards changes, we'd be better off dedicating those resources to some > effort that is more significant. (Analogy: Are we rearranging the deck > chairs on the Titanic? Maybe we'd be better off patching the big holes > in the boat or helping the passengers get into the lifeboats.) > > MDC > > Georg Bauhaus wrote: > > > > I don't think, after reading what Robert Duff, Robert Eachus, and > > Marin Condic have written, that we can say this is small/tiny, > > that is big. On what basis? Because something _looks_ tiny to us > > non-compiler writers? OK, so letting "use" imply "with" may be non-trivial, and the folks with the authority to bless it may not consider it worth the effort. Fine. As previous discussion has pointed out, at least two other options exist: "with and use" and "with/use". Now, I simply cannot see how these options can be considered anything but *trivial* to implement. For crying out loud, I could do it myself in 30 minutes, and that includes 10 minutes to think about it and another 10 minutes to test it! Several people here have expressed a preference for "with and use". As I wrote before, I think this is preferable to double naming, but it reads funny. That's why I prefer "with/use". And no, the "/" is not an "operator". Just think of "with/use" as a new keyword. It's the simplest solution and it does the job perfectly well. Whatever option you ultimately choose, please do yourselves a favor and get rid of the double naming that clutters so many Ada source files. When you pass Bob, do you say, "Hi, Bob. How are you, Bob?" or do you say, "Hi, how are you, Bob?".