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: 103376,1e3f2eac5c026e3
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-12-27 03:18:23 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-045-044.arcor-ip.NET!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 12:24:43 +0100
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <bsjpps$dab6p$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
 <wuSdneE1q-4HuHqiRVn-sA@comcast.com> <kEGFb.292$kg.11855@eagle.america.net>
 <bs9s3f$2bj2$1@msunews.cl.msu.edu> <3FE991DD.5060301@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0312241216.161fb3f5@posting.google.com>
 <wccekutx599.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com> <3FEA5C82.8050309@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0312242235.33b86222@posting.google.com>
 <bselgl$k99$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de> <3FEB047A.1040100@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.0312261209.412acff7@posting.google.com>
 <bsiutu$1nt$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-045-044.arcor-ip.net (145.254.45.44)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1072523901 13970649 145.254.45.44 ([77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3843
Date: 2003-12-27T12:24:43+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> For the "with and use" case, what is your interpretation of
> "with and use A.B;"
> Is it "with A.B; use A.B;" or is it "with A; use A.B;"?
> Which interpretation is to be chosen?

Just allow "with" everywhere "use" is allowed. Then "use A.B" could
literally imply "with A.B".

So:

package A is
   package B is
   ...
end A;

with A.B; -- This is OK, implies with A, as usual
package C is
   with A.B; -- This is also OK

BTW, this would give numerous addititional possibilities:

package X is
   -- public things

private
   with Something_Implementational.Not_To_Expose;

package Y is
   package Debug is -- I'll comment it out, later
      with Ada.Text_IO;
      ...
   end Debug;
   -- Sure that nothing from Ada.Text_IO leaks into
   -- other specifications of Y

I think it is worth to investigate the possible consequences of this
proposal.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de