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: 12 May 2004 22:23:42 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <9cadnQ6PhYWg4z_dRVn-sA@megapath.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1084425823 14710 127.0.0.1 (13 May 2004 05:23:43 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 05:23:43 +0000 (UTC) Xref: controlnews3.google.com comp.lang.ada:516 Date: 2004-05-12T22:23:42-07:00 List-Id: "Randy Brukardt" wrote in message news:<9cadnQ6PhYWg4z_dRVn-sA@megapath.net>... > "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message > news:bebbba07.0405062115.2685ca1b@posting.google.com... > ... > > > 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. > > No good. Too much useless verbiage, and it depends on an equivalence. > Equivalences almost never work; we avoid them if at all possible. (The ARG > spends a lot of time fixing problems caused by equivalences that aren't - > for instance, truncating Stream_IO files). Too much "useless verbiage"? Where? Are you replying to *my* post, or did you get mixed up with some other post? I am totally baffled by your reply. My simple proposal *eliminates* "useless verbiage". Oh, and it eliminates "useless verbiage" too. Did I mention it eliminates "useless verbiage"? But I am getting the impression that you Ada guys *like* useless verbiage, which is why I am providing some for you here. Yes, it's as useless as repeating library unit names twice. By the way, if twice is better than once, why not three times? This is not an Ada issue; it is a simple matter of common sense. > In any case, we discussed something like 4 problems with this proposal in > the past. None of them are insurmountable, but they simply aren't worth the > effort (which is substantial). And since the the Ada 2005 effort is > substantially voluteer, the effort does matter. I'd like to know what the 4 problems are, but I'll save you the time and just ask for one non-trivial problem with having "with/use x;" mean "with x; use x;" It's trivial text substitution and nothing else. > In any case, no syntax tweaks are going to have the slightest impact on > Ada's use/popularity. If people can adjust to gibberish syntax like Lisp and > C++, they certainly can handle a few quirks in Ada. Bigger issues will make > the difference, and few, if any of them have anything to do with the > language standard. What I am suggesting is a trivial freebie that can only help. It's like the difference between a long and short URL for a website. No, having a short URL is not the most important factor in the popularity of a website, but you better believe it is a factor. Convenience is always important, and people who deny that are rarely successful selling anything. Why? Because they don't give a darn about their customer.