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 21:56:24 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 21:56:24 -0800 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo> <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 1072590984 2524 127.0.0.1 (28 Dec 2003 05:56:24 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 05:56:24 +0000 (UTC) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3872 Date: 2003-12-27T21:56:24-08:00 List-Id: Georg Bauhaus wrote in message news:... > Russ <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote: > > : As I wrote in my original post, "with/use A.B;" would be exactly > : equivalent to "with A.B; use A.B;" It's simple text substitution. > > Ah O.K., yes, preprocessing, not Ada. > Coming back to one of your analogies, "use hammer", let me replace > "hammer" with "potatoes". If you think of the way recipes are > written, "with potatoes;" and then "use potatoes"; seems like the > proper way to state things, namely in the "you need..." sections > and the "you do..." sections respectively? :-) But you don't say "with and use potatoes". The problem is that "with" is a preposition and "use" is a verb, and the two types are never combined with "and." > Using another analogy, a building site, you > "bring Tools;" from the shop and then "apply Tools;" at the site. > This looks like "with Tools; use Tools;" to me, to be understood > in contexts that do require separate instructions (shop: with, > site: use). But I still think analogies won't help. Again, you don't say, "with and use tools". > And can a programming language be but grammatically awkward > if you measure its expressiveness by some (delibarately?) chosen > subset of natural language? No, a programming language is not required to use grammatically correct English, but that is not my point. All I am suggesting is that Ada should avoid an awkward grammatical construct if a better alternative is available. I think "with/use" is less awkward, and it also happens to be shorter.