Re: Clause "with and use"

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

"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:bebbba07.0311151412.6bf52757@posting.google.com...
> "Chad R. Meiners" <crmeiners@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bp4dnh$r7q$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
> > "Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bebbba07.0311141523.3c523f8c@posting.google.com...
>
> > 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.
>
> I don't see any inconsistency. The rule would be simple: "use" implies
> "with" if it is in the context section, otherwise it doesn't. Or, to
> put it another way, "use" implies "with", but any externally
> referenced package must appear in the context section in either a
> "use" or a "with" statement. Where is the inconsistency?

The above rule, when in isolation, is not inconsistent.  When it is merge
with theobjectives(you can find some very good description of these in some
of Robert Eachus's posts) of Ada, it becomes inconsistent.

> If I wanted to be unreasonable, I could claim that the current Ada
> rules are inconsistent because both "with" and "use" are allowed in
> the context section, but only "use" is allowed after the context
> section. That's superficially inconsistent, but it's not significantly
> inconsistent because, as you said yourself, "with" and "use" have
> different purposes.

Not really, because both with and use have very specific meanings.
Secondly, with clauses do not depend upon use clauses; therefore, their
placement can be limited compared to the use clause.

> > > 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).
>
> So I misunderstood your position or mistook it for that of someone
> else. It was an honest mistake.

Okay that's fine.  It is a pity we don't have formal inflection symbols for
text ;)

> > 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 ;)
>
> Character assassination?

Okay, when someone intentionally begs a question, it is usually to perform
character assassination.  For example, the question, "Have you stopped
beating your dog?".

> The simple fact is that my proposal would not
> force you to do anything you don't want to do. Neither you nor anyone
> else would need to change a single character in any of Ada source
> file.

I understand this, but ...

> But your insistence of the status quo would prevent me and
> others from writing less-cluttered code.

my insistence for the status quo is because the design of Ada is
really--really helpful to people (especially students) when they program.
The best way to express this difference is that you (en)code in C/C++ and
you program in Ada.  The result of this difference is that Ada is ground
that is very fertile for though and abstraction.

> > > 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.
>
> Oh, I see. What was that about "character assassination" again?

Well it seemed (in an observable way) that you were being intentionally,
'stubborn'.

> Thank you for the lecture in civility, Saint Chad. I'm happy to know
> that you will be there to chastise the next person who insults me.
> Just for the record, I have apologized for my admittedly rude remarks
> in the past, but nobody has apologized to me for equally offensive
> remarks.

I never claimed to be a saint nor do I aspire to become one.  Just for the
record you have apologized for only some of you rude remarks.  ;-)

> > 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.
>
> Oh, I see. Only professional Ada programmers are competent to comment
> on Ada, eh? No, I am not a programmer or software engineer by
> training, but you better believe that I have done significant
> programming and been paid for it.

Deduction and reasoning is not a replacement for experience.  The believe so
is the source of hubris.  You are free to comment on Ada, but it would be
wise to listen to the counterarguments and comments of those that have
actual experience in working with Ada.  Remember scientific a hypothesis
must be supported by experienced behavior.  The same is true about all
rational discussions about languages.

> I am one of those rare non-Ada
> programmers who recognizes the value of Ada, and look at how much
> respect I get from you and others, Saint Chad.

I have treated you with basic civility and respect.

> > What are your qualification to comment on clutter in Ada?
>
> I have read much (most?) of Cohen's encyclopedic book on Ada (in my
> spare time), and I have written some small but non-trivial Ada
> programs just to familiarize myself with the language. Also, about ten
> years ago, I led the development of an experimental real-time DGPS/INS
> precision landing guidance system in C++. As far as I am concerned,
> that way overqualifies me to comment on "with" and "use".
> Tell me, Saint Chad, what qualifications you think I need to make such
> comments? And next time I post, I'll be sure to check with you.

First, your experience with prior programming languages is secondary.  It is
useful for comparing against the experience you had in Ada.  Second, you
should have experience with some large code base of Ada.  I would suggest
the source code for GNAT.  This will put you into the position of the reader
as oppose to a writer.  I have found the GNAT source very easy to dive right
into, and furthermore, I didn't find the with-use combo to be cluttering at
all.  I will give you the benifit of the doubt that your learning projects
involved something more than just transcribing programs you wrote earlier.
Furthermore, I asked you for your qualifications because you were not
properly supporting your arguments.   You were simply asserting an opinion.
Therefore, if you want your opinion to carry the weight that you feel it
ought to, you should provide some qualifications.  There is nothing wrong
with me asking for your qualifications; it is the responsible course of
action when your assertions appear contrary to observed experience.  Their
is no need to get upset over being asked.