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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,60e2922351e0e780
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-11 14:40:04 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.CH!not-for-mail
From: Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler <ada.rocks@jlfencey.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Clause "with and use"
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 23:38:24 +0100
Organization: JeLlyFish software
Message-ID: <borog2$1fpdhl$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <bebbba07.0311081140.e0e94e6@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbqug4j.ss.randhol+valid for reply from news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <3FAF8C99.5040201@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0311102320.7fba665a@posting.google.com>
 <slrnbr17j1.1qo.randhol+valid for reply from news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no>
 <boq8bm$1g79l6$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <bebbba07.0311111235.e74c902@posting.google.com>
 <bormns$1i4d87$1@ID-175126.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil>
Reply-To: v.hoefler@acm.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-213-200-246-247.cybernet.ch (213.200.246.247)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1068590402 50116149 213.200.246.247 (16 [175126])
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.8/32.548
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2382
Date: 2003-11-11T23:38:24+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Gautier Write-only wrote:

>Vinzent 'Gadget' Hoefler:
>
>> For *sale*. Exactly. BTW, I still don't understand what is redundant
>> on with and use. I don't use "use" (well, at least not globally).
>
>In this case, effectively, you are not likely to see a redundance.

Hmm. True. Good point. :-)

>In your place I wouldn't worry at all about this proposal.

Hey, it's still *my* language! Or so. ;)

Ok, seriously, being able to use "use" without its corresponding with
in one case and differently in another looks inconsistent for me.

To bring it to the point and the way I see it: "with" is for
thecompiler/linker to state dependencies, use is for the programmer.
=46or me that's two different things and I wouldn't like them to get
mixed up.

=46or me it's pretty much the same for record types and their
corresponding aspect clauses, they can get quite lengthy some time
(even for a small 8 bit register).
But there one part is for the programmer, the other part for the
compiler. Hopefully nobody would seriously suggest that we could mix
that up, too.

Small (maybe I now stretch it a little bit far) example:

|   type Count is (Binary, BCD);
|
|   for  Count use (Binary =3D> 0, BCD =3D> 1);
|
|   for  Count'Size use 1;

could then look something like this:

|type Count is (Binary =3D> 0, BCD =3D> 1) for Size use 1;

Still looks quite pretty at the first glance. But it mixes things up
that shouldn't be mixed up, IMO.


Vinzent.