"Russ" <18k11tm001@sneakemail.com> a �crit dans le message de
[...]
> That may be so, but this particular issue is simple enough even for an
> ameteur like me. I know that
>
> with/use Ada.Integer_Text_IO;
>
> is cleaner and simpler than
>
> with Ada.Integer_Text_IO; use Ada.Inteqer_Text_IO
>
> And I also that it is a trivial matter to parse the former to produce
> the latter. I could do it myself in a few minutes. Nor does it break
> compatibility with legacy code in any way. I see absolutely no
> reasonable objection to "with/use" (but I have a funny feeling that I
> may soon be bombarded with a lot of unreasonable objections).
>
Since you asked for it... (but I'll try to have reasonable objections).
Note that I am known for being strongly *in favor* of the use clause.

I would strongly oppose this proposal for a very simple reason: it defeats the main goal of having separated with from use.
With is a library level clause; it tells: "this unit, somewhere needs that unit".
Use opens the visibility: it tells: "here is the scope where I actually use the unit". A use clause should always be for the
innermost context where the unit is actually used.

Therefore, you should *never* have a use clause as a context clause. If I need to have something visible everywhere in a unit, I use
the same style as when the visibility is more restricted, i.e. I don't write:

with Foo; use Foo;
procedure P is
...
end P;

but rather:

with Foo;
procedure P is
   use Foo;
   ...
end P.

Allowing with/use would simply encourage a style that should be discouraged altogether. QED.

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr