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: 103376,60e2922351e0e780 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-11-14 21:35:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!msunews!not-for-mail From: "Chad R. Meiners" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Clause "with and use" Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:39:36 -0500 Organization: Michigan State University Message-ID: References: for reply from news@kiuk0156.chembio.ntnu.no> <3FB1609E.D56E315C@fakeaddress.nil> NNTP-Posting-Host: arctic.cse.msu.edu X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:2511 Date: 2003-11-14T23:39:36-05:00 List-Id: "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?