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,fce663eaf40b52f6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: controlnews3.google.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Manifesto against Vector Date: 6 May 2004 22:15:45 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1083906946 4981 127.0.0.1 (7 May 2004 05:15:46 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 05:15:46 +0000 (UTC) Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:344 Date: 2004-05-06T22:15:45-07:00 List-Id: Wes Groleau wrote in message news:... > Russ wrote: > > Just as I feared. They *are* fumbling the ball. > > > And I also that it is a trivial matter to parse the former to produce > > the latter. I could do it myself in a few minutes. Nor does it break > > Most of us can do a one-liner perl command to do the above > or put it in a Makefile or build script in a few seconds. Bingo! But why should every programmer who values clean code have to write a "one-liner perl command" when someone can do it once an for all for everyone? > So why should the ARG study to make sure something _you_ > might not have thought of _could_ break existing code, modify > the Reference Manual, and make all the compiler vendors change > compiler code? I'd like to know how "with/use" could *possibly* break existing code. And you're worried about modifying the Reference Manual? For Pete's sake, I'll write the two sentences it will take. Here you go: The new keyword "with/use", when it appears in a context section, is a convenient shorthand for combining "with" and "use" without repeating the library unit name. For example, with/use Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO; is equivalent to with Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Text_IO, Ada.Integer_Text_IO; except that it is shorter, cleaner, less error prone, and easier to read. [end of addition to RM] There. It's done. > But of course, that is an "unreasonable objection" to your > earth-shakingly important change. Or is your change just > an excuse that some addict to another language uses for > not using Ada? First of all, I never said anything about "earth-shaking". That's your strawman characterization. I would call "with/use" significant, however. A significant cleanup of the crap that litters the start of so many Ada source files. I'll tell you the impression I get when I read about your concern for the precious time of the Ada designers. I get the impression you consider their bandwidth to be miniscule. If so, Ada is in trouble. They're too busy remodeling the house to have time to dump the trash? I have some advice: they had better find time to dump the trash before they try to sell the house. You are right about one thing: your objection is unreasonable -- at least it makes no sense to me.