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: 2003-12-27 13:56:57 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: 27 Dec 2003 13:56:57 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Message-ID: <bebbba07.0312271356.6fda713e@posting.google.com>
References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
 <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0312241216.161fb3f5@posting.google.com>
 <wccekutx599.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0312242235.33b86222@posting.google.com>
 <bselgl$k99$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0312261209.412acff7@posting.google.com>
 <bsiutu$1nt$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <bsjpps$dab6p$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1072562217 4880 127.0.0.1 (27 Dec 2003 21:56:57
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 21:56:57 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3862
Date: 2003-12-27T13:56:57-08:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message news:<bsjpps$dab6p$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Georg Bauhaus wrote:
> 
> > For the "with and use" case, what is your interpretation of
> > "with and use A.B;"
> > Is it "with A.B; use A.B;" or is it "with A; use A.B;"?
> > Which interpretation is to be chosen?
> 
> Just allow "with" everywhere "use" is allowed. Then "use A.B" could
> literally imply "with A.B".

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you meant exactly what you
wrote. I think you meant that "with" should never choke on an argument
that "use" would not choke on.

If I understand you correctly, I think that's an excellent proposal.
It would eliminate an annoying technicality that prevents
simplification of context declarations.