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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,1a066a8221187698
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Frowining upon with clauses (was:Re: Environment Variables)
Date: 1997/02/08
Message-ID: <dewar.855435826@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 217480080
references: <5c1nf9$d3q@ultranews.duc.auburn.edu>
 <32ECE7F8.35B@watson.ibm.com>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-02-08T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Norman says, answering John

<<> On an unrelated note (and this is a classroom question, but it's not
> doing my homework for me), my professor commented that using WITH, though
> common in Ada-83, is frowned upon by the industry in Ada 95.  Any
> specific reason for that?

"Frowned upon" seems a bit overgeneral.  Certainly there are packages
that are most appropriately written as child packages in Ada 95, and in
Ada 83 such packages would have had to been written as independent
packages gain access to the facilities of the "parent package" through a
with clause.
>>


Surely John is confusing WITH with USE, I cannot imagine anyone who knows
anything at all about Ada saying tha the use of WITH is frowned upon, 
whereas it is quite true that many Ada programmers prefer to avoid USE (a
subject on which we do *not* need another thread I think!)