Re: Clause "with and use"

["Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com>]

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0311141523.3c523f8c@posting.google.com...
> Yes, but if you wear safety goggles when you watch TV (because you
> never know when your TV tube might explode), that is
> obsessive/compulsive. I can make up irrelevant examples as well as you
> can.

It wasn't an irrelevant example.  I was demonstrating the type of practice
that these people considered obsessive/compulsive.

> > Which would imply that use clauses would have very different semantics
based
> > upon the scope in which they are placed.  That would really help people
> > misunderstand the language's semantics.
>
> Nonsense. In Python, I can write "import math", which is equivalent to
> Ada's "with", or I can write "from math import *", which is equivalent
> to "use". And if I use the latter, I don't need to precede it by the
> former. Yet nobody misunderstands anything.

But use clauses can appear in declaration sections too.  That is the
inconsistency.

> This whole line about "with" and "use" having different meanings is
> completely irrelevant. I don't care if "with" sends a mouse to the
> moon and "use" massages my feet. The simple fact is that "use" implies
> "with," whether you like it or not. Just try to use " without
> "with", and the compiler will tell you so. If I say, "use a hammer,"
> do I need to precede it with, "obtain a hammer"? Of course not. You
> cannot possibly "use" a hammer if one is not available.

If the use clauses couldn't be used in declaration section, I wouldn't
object to having use clauses imply with clauses.
As is, doing so will add an inconsistency to the language.

> You are confusing two different issues here. One issue is what *you*
> consider good programming practice, and the other issue is what the
> language allows or should allow. *You* don't think that "use" should
> ever be used in the context section at the top of a file. Sorry, Ada
> allows it, and many excellent programmers consider it perfectly
> acceptable in many cases.

Ha! You don't know my opinion on use clauses in context sections.  I never
said that people should not put them in the context section of a unit.   I
said that if people use them in their appropriate(using rational judgment)
place (which can be at the top of the file).

Nice use of begging the question!

> But since you don't like that particular feature, you want to keep it
> as inconvenient as possible to use. Well, isn't that just a bit
> self-centered? I and others would like to be able to use this
> officially blessed language feature, but we don't want to have to jump
> through unnecessary hoops to use it.

Ah, here comes the unwarranted character assassination that follows the
begging of the question ;)

> Neglecting to floss your teeth is bad practice. Maybe hotels should
> not let you check in unless you show them that you are carrying dental
> floss. What harm could it do? I'll tell you what harm it could do. It
> could drive away clients, even ones who carry dental floss, because
> people don't like to be micro-managed.
>

Come on.  I was trying to have a rational argument with you; however, I see
that this is unlikely.

All I am saying is that allowing use clauses in context clause to imply with
clauses creates an inconsistency in the language.   The designers of Ada did
a very good job of keeping inconsistencies out of the language, which I one
of the characteristics I enjoy about Ada.  In my opinion reducing of a
potential clutter idea(of which I am still not convinced is a clutter
issue), is not worth introducing an inconsistency to the language.

>
> > When you speak in public, you are expected to remain civil.   To do
> > otherwise is simply a negative statement about your character, but I
will
> > let you worry about your public image.
>
> Where were you when I was called an "idiot" and a "dumbass" without
> provocation, right here on this forum? I could have used your wisdom
> then.

I was elsewhere.  Of course my statement applies to those who might have
been uncivil to you.  However, I would note that when I browse through this
newsgroup , your lack of civility sticks out like a sore thumb.

Let's look at the facts (as written in the newsgroups):

You proclaimed that you do not program as a profession.
You proclaimed that you have not written a serious project in Ada.

Yet you proclaim that you know best for a language in which you have not
spent a serious effort to understand and appreciate.  I asked you how you
were qualified to determine when use clause are clutter. and  you failed to
answer that important question.  Since few of your argument are supportable,
I ask you again.  What are your qualification to comment on clutter in Ada?