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: 2003-12-28 03:38:10 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!dialin-145-254-038-053.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: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 12:44:31 +0100
Organization: At home
Message-ID: <bsmfav$d8f2i$2@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
References: <468D78E4EE5C6A4093A4C00F29DF513D04B82B08@VS2.hdi.tvcabo>
 <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$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <bsjpps$dab6p$1@ID-77047.news.uni-berlin.de>
 <bsjth6$dna$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
NNTP-Posting-Host: dialin-145-254-038-053.arcor-ip.net (145.254.38.53)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 1072611489 13909074 145.254.38.53 ([77047])
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.2
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3880
Date: 2003-12-28T12:44:31+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> Dmitry A. Kazakov <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> wrote:
> : 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".
> 
> Hm.
> 
> if condition then     -- not Ada
>   declare
>     with X;
>   begin
>     ...;
>   end;
> else
>   declare
>     with Y;
>   begin
>     ...
>   end;
> end if;
> 
> What is the compiler to do?

Where is any problem? Exactly this is already allowed! Consider:

   procedure With_X is separate;
   procedure With_Y is separate;
   ...
   if Condition then -- Now this is Ada
      With_X;
   else
      With_Y;
   end if;

with X;
separate (...) procedure With_X is ... end With_X;

with X;
separate (...) procedure With_Y is ... end With_Y;

> : 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;
> 
> why not
> 
> with Ada.Text_IO;
> private package Y.Debug is
> 
> end Y.Debug;
> 
> Do you need the Debug things in further private definitions
> after Debug?

I wished to illustrate a use of with in a nested declarative region.
Technically one could always make a child package out of it. Though, not
always, a child of a generic package is also generic...

> : I think it is worth to investigate the possible consequences of this
> : proposal.
> 
> We might end up with
> 
> package P is
> 
>    from Ada.Text_IO import Get_Line, Put_Line; --)
> 
> ...
> end P;

Or with getting rid of with clauses at all, as Robert Duff mentioned in
passing! I never liked them. How about that?

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