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: 103376,3d3f20d31be1c33a
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Use use type? (Was Re: Safety-critical development in Ada and
 Eiffel)
Date: 1997/07/22
Message-ID: <dewar.869607153@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 258207566
References: <EDEnp2.1K3@syd.csa.com.au> <EDGE3J.213@syd.csa.com.au>
 <dewar.869181695@merv> <JSA.97Jul18144029@alexandria.organon.com>
 <EDJn23.L5u@world.std.com>
 <Pine.SGI.3.95.970720110809.28934A-100000@shellx.best.com>
 <dewar.869492682@merv>
 <Pine.SGI.3.95.970721201854.2263D-100000@shellx.best.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-07-22T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Brian said

<<Well, why introduce it at all, when a use clause will use-ually suffice?
It doesn't seem to me (I like regular old use) that it buys you anything,
and you end up treating the primitive operators as "special", something
which you said you didn't like. So I retreat from the position of
>>


OK, I understand where you are coming from. But the fact of the matter is
that there are many, even a clear majority, of Ada users who will not use
full-blown use no matter what, and yet they desparately want to be able
to use operators without qualification and without having to rename them.

The use of "use type" is clearly preferable to either prefix notation or
to having stacks of renaming declarations around the place.

Given this very common viewpoint, I see no good argument *against*
the introduction of use type from a pragmatic point of view. In terms
of language design, I agree that the issue remains moot.