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: 1997/08/02
Message-ID: <dewar.870538820@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 261749319
References: <JSA.97Jul18144029@alexandria.organon.com>
 <5r64cq$meh@peg.apc.org> <JSA.97Jul24162754@alexandria.organon.com>
 <5rrr5a$dds$2@peuplier.wanadoo.fr> <EE8qpI.6s8@world.std.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-08-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


I must say that the debate about keywords for with/use is about the most
convincing argument I have seen that this choice was reasonable. I find
all the substitutions proposed uniformly MUCH worse than the original,
and some of them are really horrid.