Re: Ripple effect

[Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com>]

Jeffrey R. Carter wrote:

>> Why?
>> If you remove some use clause that might affect the visibility of some 
>> primitive operation, then it will also remove the whole type that is 
>> involved in a given expression, rendering the whole as illegal.
>>
>> Could you provide a short example of this Ripple effect?
> 
> No. I'm simply aware that STT cites direct operator visibility as 
> potentially giving rise to the Ripple effect in the Ada FAQ
> 
> http://www.adapower.com/index.php?Command=Class&ClassID=FAQ&CID=358

Yes, I've seen it already. Still, something is missing.

As a C++ programmer, I like the idea of doing this:

std::cout << "Hello";

without writing using namespace std - the stream insertion operator will 
be found in the appropriate namespace (std in this case) and it's enough 
to qualify std::cout to make it happen. Without this feature, I would 
need to write this:

std::operator<<(std::cout, "Hello");


Now, adding or removing #include directives might change one legal C++ 
program into another legal program, but this is due to implicit 
conversions - without them I don't see any way for this to happen.

That's why the assertion that such effect is possible in Ada strikes me 
a little bit.
Waiting for examples.


-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/