Re: Other Ada Standards (was Re: SIGada Conference)

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

Russ wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote in message
> news:<bsjpps$dab6p$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>> 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".
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you meant exactly what you
> wrote. I think you meant that "with" should never choke on an argument
> that "use" would not choke on.

Yep.

> If I understand you correctly, I think that's an excellent proposal.
> It would eliminate an annoying technicality that prevents
> simplification of context declarations.

Well, one can never know all the consequences of a proposal...

With/use issue is rather a cosmetic one. It might be very important for
language promoting, though for those who are using Ada on daily basis, it
is uninteresting, yet. Another very important cosmetic thing, (Robert
Eachus and me mentioned it before) could be an ability to bundle a set of
with's and use's in one package with then could be with-ed / used-ed
instead.

And these cosmetic things are about

- information hiding,
- refactoring,
- reuse

of declarations. Isn't it more than just an issue of training a text editor?

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